Well, since it was Ian Murray, Labour's only MP until yesterday, who told me that, I'd say it's quite important "guff".
Scottish By Election
- Thread starter 1finny
- Start date
Well, since it was Ian Murray, Labour's only MP until yesterday, who told me that, I'd say it's quite important "guff".
No, the whole point was that Labour was being accused of antisemitism, and instead of doing the obvious thing - accepting the IHRA definition and dealing with it, Corbyn and co tried to redefine antisemitism. It was like saying your team's disallowed goal should stand because the offside law is wrong.
Some battles are unwinnable. Good politicians don't fight unwinnable battles.The IHRA definition was deeply flawed and Corbyn and his allies were aware of that from the start, unlike most of the political world. They are being proved right now though.
Antisemitism definition used by UK universities leading to ‘unreasonable’ accusations
Report says IHRA definition has led to 40 cases against people and groups – of which 38 were cleared – and is stifling academic freedomswww.theguardian.com
Billyzin
Well-known member
Schilltastic.
Laughing
Well-known member
You probably should engage rather than dismiss. It creates debate and may change minds. On this subject I, but and large agree with soutra. That doesn't happen very often.
Rofesleg
Well-known member
I'm surprised you were called a liar. The SNP has been on a downward spiral for a while.
They were good for Scotland for a while, supported by strong leaders in Salmond and Sturgeon. They focused on issues other than independence but still tapped into national pride.
They were helped by basically having zero credible opposition.
Then the independence vote campaign gave them a true purpose and momentum.
They lost that and shortly after, the oil industry collapsed in Aberdeen. Their chance had gone.
Sturgeon left.
It took ages for her replacement to be appointed.
Her replacement was uninspiring (which is being kind).
Then Sturgeon and her hubby (Chief Executive of SNP) were arrested with murder tents in their garden, casting a shadow over the whole party.
ThatFragranceGuy
Well-known member
She must be the only person in the world you're more obsessed with than Payero
Eh? What makes either of those policies North London centric? And Scottish Labour is still unionist now. Starmer's donors had the Scottish leader changed as Leonard was too left wing.
Scrote
Well-known member
No, no. The point, as you've alluded to, was to make the battle unwinnable.
Labour were accused of antisemitism and were given two choices. Do option A and you're antisemitic. Do option B and you're antisemitic.
The 'redefinition' of antisemitism came from Jewish academics. The clarifications (extended examples) to IHRA were an attempt to embrace both IHRA, in full, and those extra examples. The 'antisemitism crisis' mob - led by Margaret Hodge, amongst others - pushed a narrative that held Labour (and Corbyn specifically) liable for antisemitism whether they did one thing or the other.
Oppressed minorities have the right to define what is offensive towards themselves. The oppressed minority disagreed within it's own ranks as to what was offensive. It was impossible to win.
Labour didn't pick the battle - they were drawn into it. Labour never had the choice to not fight it.
Labour needed to be seen doing something about antisemitism, rather than doing nothing. Trying to redefine definitions is nothing.
From yesterday's Jewish Chronicle -
***Thursday's by-election saw the SNP's majority overturned by Labour after Shanks won 17,845 votes, well ahead of the 8,399 votes returned for Scottish Nationalist candidate Katy Loudon.
Shanks, 35, said: “I’ve spent years working with different faith groups, particularly around Christian and Jewish relations.
“I know a lot of Jewish people and they were genuinely scared and hurt by the culture that had built up and that wasn’t being tackled by the leadership [under Corbyn].
“It was a deeply personal decision, I found that I found it difficult to look people in the eye who were Jewish and who genuinely couldn’t understand why I would remain in the party.
“It was that the party leadership at the highest levels weren’t tackling it. I took a personal decision to leave, which was incredibly difficult to do.”
After he quit in 2019, Shanks, a teacher, wrote in a blog post of Corbyn: “A party that has been woefully inadequate in tackling antisemitism time and time and time again does not have those values at its core.
“And aside from all that, it’s a party that seems oblivious to how utterly unelectable it has become.”***
And yet the tories can be islamaphobic with immunity.
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
The party hasn't changed since then, it's the same members with the same values. The leadership has changed but the previous leadership weren't antisemitic. They were left wing and therein lay the problem for a powerful section within the Labour Party.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
This is a lie. Corbyn's Labour party accepted the IHRA definition. What he objected to was some of the examples which allowed for conflation and false accusations. If you have read the Guardian article that I have linked you would see that this is now happening. Lots of unfounded accusations against professional people or organisations.
You do realise that the only thing Corbyn was found guilty of was personally getting involved to speed up the process of investigation and discipline, The NEC were sitting on piles of complaints whilst trawling social media to find fickle reasons for suspending or expelling Corbyn supporters.
Scrote
Well-known member
There was no antisemitism crisis. It was political. If you don't understand that, given all that's come out since, then there's no point continuing the discussion.
Labour were put in a position whereby the accusations would be made no matter what they did. The truth didn't matter.
I'll make it simple for you.
If you say the sky is blue, you're a racist.
If you don't say the sky is blue, you're a racist.
If you don't answer the question, you're obviously trying to hide the fact you're a racist.
So, tell me, what colour is the sky?
We know from both the EHRC and the Forde Report that the attempts by Corbyn's team to tackle antisemitism were being blocked by the very people making the accusations of antisemitism.
The EHRC have very recently settled out of court on a challenge from Ken LIvingstone at a loss of some £200k - you'd think if they were fighting the good fight they'd have gone all the way to court.
It's also very surprising that it didn't make headline news when the original accusations were all over the media.
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
My point is that the anti semitism thing is not an issue with the ordinary punter in the street. It was an invented issue anyway.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
Not to mention that The Jewish Chronicle is has an inglorious record of slander and breach of practice casas that it has lost.
I only posted the Jewish Chronicle article because it reprinted Michael Shanks' blog and tweet. There's no comment from the JC except reporting the result of the by-election.
Scrote
Well-known member
Fully agree. I don't understand why antisemitism needed bringing up. It's almost as if there's an agenda.
And yet the poster bringing it up would presumably be full on centrist Labour.
Funny that...