Equality and Human Rights Commission finds Labour Party guilty of antisemitism

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
I did read it, that was not the worst accusation. That was one of the few they found Labour to be "legally responsible for".

I consider this to be far worse.

And this.

And these are just examples based on a *sample* over 70 complaints. And that's mainly social media, some of the whisteblowers also experienced physical harrassment and assault. [/B]

Originally posted by Artol
Yeah, and if all of them conflate valid criticism of Israel with anti-semitism, like in the worst accusation. I understand that in the US and the UK for the longest time this has been claimed to be the same, but it is not. Israel is a gigantic Apartheid state that massively oppresses the Palestinian population that it has caged in open air camps.

It also is a nuclear state that is not a member of any of the treaties. By the laws of the United States they could not do business with them, and yet they cover for them in the UN Security Council. Everyone knows this. There are anti-semites, they are overwhelmingly right wing however, left wing politicians just do not like one of the most authoritarian right wing states that's overseeing one of the largest humanitarian crisis on this planet.

I'm just waiting for an similar investigation into the MPs and members of the Tory party, it would be outrageous if it turned out that any of them had called black people "picacninnies" with "water-melon smiles", said gay marriage is the same as bestiality, said that Islam is the problem or defended the Empire's colonial record....but surely none of them would ever.

Originally posted by Artol
I consider only the ones you can say Labour is actually responsible for as a sign that Labour misbehaved, of course there will be examples of bad things, like the ones you pointed out, but if Labour aren't culpable, why should they be culpable....makes no sense.

This is by no means the full extent of the issues we identified within the files in our sample; it represents the tip of the iceberg. We also saw:

- A further 18 'borderline' cases. In these cases, there was not enough evidence to conclude that the Labour Party was legally responsible for the conduct of the individual. These were people such as local councillors, local election candidates and Constituency Labour Party office holders.
-In many more files, evidence of antisemitic conduct by an 'ordinary' member of the Labour Party. These members did not hold any office or role, therefore the Labour Party could not be held directly responsible for their conduct under the Equality Act 2010.

In light of our position as a regulator, we only made findings of unlawful conduct in cases that were sufficiently clear-cut, in Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998 terms. We explain this in Chapter 3.

If the Labour Party really is committed to building a culture of zero tolerance towards antisemitism, then it must make it clear that antisemitic conduct by members will not be tolerated. It should also deal with such conduct by its members effectively whenever it does occur, regardless of whether it is legally responsible for it.

Originally posted by Artol
Yeah, and if all of them conflate valid criticism of Israel with anti-semitism, like in the worst accusation. I understand that in the US and the UK for the longest time this has been claimed to be the same, but it is not. Israel is a gigantic Apartheid state that massively oppresses the Palestinian population that it has caged in open air camps.

It also is a nuclear state that is not a member of any of the treaties. By the laws of the United States they could not do business with them, and yet they cover for them in the UN Security Council. Everyone knows this. There are anti-semites, they are overwhelmingly right wing however, left wing politicians just do not like one of the most authoritarian right wing states that's overseeing one of the largest humanitarian crisis on this planet.

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
*Legally* culpable, i.e. something they can be prosecuted for. Naturally the threshold for this is going to be very high. Specifically, there has to be proof that it involved harrassment of specific persons. Spreading undirected conspiracies about the Rothschilds controlling the world for example, is not against the law (freedom of speech). But as the report says, if the Labour Party believes in a no-tolerance approach to anti-semitism, they should be taking action against their members, sometimes office holding members, regardless.
I don't disagree with this, its not my intent to defend the Israeli state at all.

I don't disagree that they should take action, I still think this is completely blown out of proportion though. And that a lot of it conflates acceptable criticism with anti-semitism.

I also think it is silly to pretend that Israel does not lobby in the US and the UK, they do so openly, and that is their good right, but people pointing that out are not anti-semitic, imo.

Originally posted by Artol
I don't disagree that they should take action, I still think this is completely blown out of proportion though. And that a lot of it conflates acceptable criticism with anti-semitism.

I also think it is silly to pretend that Israel does not lobby in the US and the UK, they do so openly, and that is their good right, but people pointing that out are not anti-semitic, imo.

EDIT:*which, for the record, is an unlawful smear.

EDIT: Neither is it fair to complain about conflating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism, and then conflate British Jews with that same government.

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
I'm sure they do, but its conspiritorial to suggest they are behind the anti-semitism accusations (come on), there is zero proof of this. Imagine if you were a Jewish person within the Labour party and were accused of being some kind of agent of Israel for making an anti-semitism complaint.* No wonder so many of them left.

EDIT:*which, for the record, is an unlawful smear.

EDIT: Neither is it fair to complain about conflating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism, and then conflate British Jews with that same government.

Again this is hard to judge, there certainly are some cases of anti-semitic behavior (sadly in the reports they are conflated with what should be acceptable criticism of a foreign government), but we are looking at this in a vacuum, they found 18 Borderline cases, the Labour Party has almost 600000 members, is that a lot? I don't know, it's certainly more than zero. How many cases are there in a comparable party? The Tories, we know, have run anti-semites and perhaps worse, they have backed anti-semitic regimes, so there's certainly something going on there, but for some reason that does not make the news, and is not investigated. So is it a problem, yeah, any anti-semitism is a problem, is it the size of the problem that the UK media has made it? I wouldn't know how to judge that.

Additionally, the two cases they mark as unlawful don't seem that bad to be honest, perhaps one of the Facebook updates, and as far as I can tell neither of them led to prosecution, so the unlawfulness of them is solely a legal opinion, not a fact.

To be honest it just really feels like there's two completely different sets of standards applied. One is that anti-semitism is only highlighted and investigated in one party and the other is that anti-semitism is treated as a vastly worse offense than the commonplace islamophobia, homophobia, sexism, etc. in the Tory party.

But to be fair, partly I'm bitter about how capital interests have steered the UK elections, so take my criticism with a grain of salt, I guess.

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
EDIT: Neither is it fair to complain about conflating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism, and then conflate British Jews with that same government.

That's a fair point. Being a pro-Israel lobby is not the same as being an Israeli lobby. It was unfair to conflate that.

I enjoy debates with you two involved more than most as you are always reasonable.

Originally posted by Artol
Again this is hard to judge, there certainly are some cases of anti-semitic behavior (sadly in the reports they are conflated with what should be acceptable criticism of a foreign government), but we are looking at this in a vacuum, they found 18 Borderline cases, the Labour Party has almost 600000 members, is that a lot? I don't know, it's certainly more than zero. How many cases are there in a comparable party? The Tories, we know, have run anti-semites and perhaps worse, they have backed anti-semitic regimes, so there's certainly something going on there, but for some reason that does not make the news, and is not investigated. So is it a problem, yeah, any anti-semitism is a problem, is it the size of the problem that the UK media has made it? I wouldn't know how to judge that.

Additionally, the two cases they mark as unlawful don't seem that bad to be honest, perhaps one of the Facebook updates, and as far as I can tell neither of them led to prosecution, so the unlawfulness of them is solely a legal opinion, not a fact.

To be honest it just really feels like there's two completely different sets of standards applied. One is that anti-semitism is only highlighted and investigated in one party and the other is that anti-semitism is treated as a vastly worse offense than the commonplace islamophobia, homophobia, sexism, etc. in the Tory party.

But to be fair, partly I'm bitter about how capital interests have steered the UK elections, so take my criticism with a grain of salt, I guess.

Because let's be honest, the membership of the Conversative Party is predominately white, Christian, and anti-Islam. There aren't any Muslims within their Conservative Party to blow the whistle because they don't let any in. This enquiry is being called by external parties like the Muslim Council of Britain (who they do not respect) on attitudes that are the bread-and-butter of Tory thinking. It's like asking the Republican Party to hold themselves accountable for their homophobia, fat chance, and what's the point? They are f*cking proud of it.

I don't think we should wring our hands too much over the 'lack of accountability' regarding Tory racism, sexism, homophobia etc. we already know they are a shit party and the safest place for them to be is out of government. I would like to see an electable Labour Party does not tolerate anti-semitism though. 👆

Labour party is in ruins at this point...

The Left, in general, has had problems with anti-semitism since at least the early 20th century.

I think that's true.

Here in Canada, we had a bunch of people who are anti Israel say they wished Hitler killed all the Jews, and this took place at a University iirc.

How can you criticize jewish culture as a whole, without being anti-semetic?

The same question applies to any race, culture, or religion.

This is another reason I am skeptical of the left. Yes, bigotry exists. Yes, they will turn legitimate criticism into bigotry.

No, that doesn't mean you can never criticize a minority group. I only seem to hear criticism from racists, and never from legitimate sources.

This is the statement that Jeremy Corbyn has been suspended for.

Responding to the EHRC's findings, Mr Corbyn said he was "always determined to eliminate all forms of racism".

He claimed his team had "acted to speed up, not hinder the process" and that the scale of anti-Semitism within Labour had been "dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party".

I think most people, certainly my friends on the right who value freedom of expression, and if the look at it not through a partisan lens, can see that this is an insane, and politically motivated reason, to suspend someone.

Originally posted by DarthAloysius

I don't think we should wring our hands too much over the 'lack of accountability' regarding Tory racism, sexism, homophobia etc. we already know they are a shit party and the safest place for them to be is out of government. I would like to see an electable Labour Party does not tolerate anti-semitism though. 👆

I hope you do not mind if I don't reply to the rest of the post, I think in large parts we are on the same page. I do want there to be no anti-semitism in the Labour party, or any party.

Two things I would disagree with in this last statement, and it may just be a disagreement of perspective, is a) I do think it is important to, at every turn, point out the hypocrisy of the Tory party and the media that has supported them and done their bidding in key areas and b) I want Labour to be electable, but I also want it to be a Labour party when it is elected, I am not really interested in having a corporate party that will further the austerity program and the erosion of any labour rights in the country, which seems to me the way that the Starmer leadership is going. Electable Labour is great, a Tory party with a red paint job, is not.

Not at all, it's your time.

And I understand that perspective I just feel there is a certainly level of pointlessness to the EHRC investigating say, racism in the Tory party. It's not like they are going to look into their immigration policy, or the Prevent programme, or their support for stop and search. But I agree the Tories don't and shouldn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to criticising Labour regarding 'racism'.

We shall see regarding Starmer, I've been quite impressed with how he's handling himself as an Opposition leader so far. And he's come out against austerity.

Starmer is about as appealing as cardboard.

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
Not at all, it's your time.

And I understand that perspective I just feel there is a certainly level of pointlessness to the EHRC investigating say, racism in the Tory party. It's not like they are going to look into their immigration policy, or the Prevent programme, or their support for stop and search. But I agree the Tories don't and shouldn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to criticising Labour regarding 'racism'.

We shall see regarding Starmer, I've been quite impressed with how he's handling himself as an Opposition leader so far. And he's come out against austerity.

I hope you are right, I'd love to be pleasantly surprised.

Originally posted by Artol
This is the statement that Jeremy Corbyn has been suspended for.

I think most people, certainly my friends on the right who value freedom of expression, and if the look at it not through a partisan lens, can see that this is an insane, and politically motivated reason, to suspend someone.

I think if that is all he said yes it is insane to suspend him.

Though I'm not sure if they have something similar to the 1st amendment in the USA.