Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[Cloo]

Adam Wagner's thread here about the Labour/Jews clusterfuck is a good one (he's usually worth reading on the topic).

Yes, he goes to our synagogue - he's doing his best to create some kind of nuance in this whole sorry mess.

It does seem to me like now the RW press have grabbed hold of this, it would have been a no-win situation for Corbyn.

Had he, say, expelled anyone who was so much as suspected of antisemitism, it'd be 'Look how many antisemites were in the party, Labour is utterly discredited' from one side, and 'Look, he's not allowing criticism of Israel' on the other. I can't say Corbyn's dealt well with it, but I'm honestly not sure what dealing well with it would have looked like given the number of people willing to make something of it from one side or another. A lot of the damaging fallout related to it is not caused by 'Corbyn' but by his supporters being tone deaf (not necessarily antisemitic) in their eagerness to defend him from the Mail et al, it seems to me.

Either way, it still boils my piss for us to be thrown under the bus to discredit Labour, by people who have fuck all concern for the welfare of Jews.

 

[Yogibear]

Someone needs to say the Labour Party will now officially adopt the IHRA code. However any additions or so called examples will not be adopted by the party. It's as simple as that and anyone who doesn't agree should feel free to leave the Labour Party.

 

[8ball]

Sorry if this is a naive question (it almost certainly is), but is the main difference between the Labour definition to do with comparisons between Israeli State actions and Nazi atrocities, or are there important other material elements?

 

[hot air baboon]

according to the Sky News Press Review last night ( yes, I know ) the main sticking point was that Seamus Milne's journalistic output could be deemed to fall foul of the IHRA code

 

[belboid]

Someone needs to say the Labour Party will now officially adopt the IHRA code. However any additions or so called examples will not be adopted by the party. It's as simple as that and anyone who doesn't agree should feel free to leave the Labour Party.

They've already adopted the code and most of the examples.

 

[8ball]

They've already adopted the code and most of the examples.

Which examples are missing?

 

[Yogibear]

Sorry if this is a naive question (it almost certainly is), but is the main difference between the Labour definition to do with comparisons between Israeli State actions and Nazi atrocities, or are there important other material elements?

Apparently what the Labour Party adopted in 2016 was the IHRA code which is generally acknowledged by all anti-fascists as good and positive. It is open to reflection and political discussion and criticism of the Israeli state.

What is now trying to be forced upon the Labour Party is additions to the initial IHRA code. These are 'examples' that have been created after the drafting of the internationally recognised IHRA code.

IMO the Labour Party should throw out any additions and just officially adopt the code and move on.

 

[8ball]

Apparently what the Labour Party adopted in 2016 was the IHRA code which is generally acknowledged by all anti-fascists as good and positive. It is open to reflection and political discussion and criticism of the Israeli state.

What is now trying to be forced upon the Labour Party is additions to the initial IHRA code. These are 'examples' that have been created after the drafting of the internationally recognised IHRA code.

IMO the Labour Party should throw out any additions and just officially adopt the code and move on.

Yeah, I was just trying to get a grip on exactly what the row is over.

 

[belboid]

Sorry if this is a naive question (it almost certainly is), but is the main difference between the Labour definition to do with comparisons between Israeli State actions and Nazi atrocities, or are there important other material elements?

there are four differences, that is one (Labour adds that there need to be anti-semitic intent behind the comparison), saying the desire for a jewish homeland is racist (argued about because of a lack of clarity about whether they are talking about A jewish homeland, or THE jewish homeland that was set up. And was a racist endeavour), saying Jews are more loyal to Israel than their home nation (that one is basically just reworded, and added context given). I've forgotten the fourth off the top of my head.

e2a: the fourth is - “Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

 

[belboid]

Apparently what the Labour Party adopted in 2016 was the IHRA code which is generally acknowledged by all anti-fascists as good and positive. It is open to reflection and political discussion and criticism of the Israeli state.

What is now trying to be forced upon the Labour Party is additions to the initial IHRA code. These are 'examples' that have been created after the drafting of the internationally recognised IHRA code.

IMO the Labour Party should throw out any additions and just officially adopt the code and move on.

I think the additional examples were always there. Most have been adopted by the 31 signatories - including the Hungarian state which is busy being thoroughly, 'properly', anti-semitic. Which just shows you how pointless the code is.

 

[Yogibear]

They've already adopted the code and most of the examples.

IMO they should now refute all the examples and adopt the code only. It's not rocket science.

 

[belboid]

This is a very good piece on the differences

The Code of Conduct for Antisemitism: a tale of two texts

 

[8ball]

there are four differences, that is one (Labour adds that there need to be anti-semitic intent behind the comparison), saying the desire for a jewish homeland is racist (argued about because of a lack of clarity about whether they are talking about A jewish homeland, or THE jewish homeland that was set up. And was a racist endeavour), saying Jews are more loyal to Israel than their home nation (that one is basically just reworded, and added context given). I've forgotten the fourth off the top of my head.

e2a: the fourth is - “Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

How about an English homeland? We very clearly understand what it means when people talk about England being a land for the English.

There are Jews in London, New York, Berlin etc.

Surely this is their homeland.

 

[belboid]

How about an English homeland? We very clearly understand what it means when people talk about England being a land for the English.

There are Jews in London, New York, Berlin etc.

Surely this is their homeland.

This is a goddamned proddy dog country. It's not even a proper homeland for left-footers

 

[8ball]

This is a goddamned proddy dog country. It's not even a proper homeland for left-footers

Maybe I don't know enough about the history, but I'm definitely missing something.
I never got that "two state solution" shit either.

Seems like a hiding to nothing to me.

 

[Yogibear]

That is a very one sided piece which argues that the Labour Party should adopt Zionist additions to the Code. I've given my opinion on what should happen above, and I'll leave it there.

 

[belboid]

That is a very one sided piece which argues that the Labour Party should adopt Zionist additions to the Code. I've given my opinion on what should happen above, and I'll leave it there.

No it doesn't. It is saying all the salient points are already included without giving any ground to those trying to stifle criticism of Israel.

 

[8ball]

No it doesn't. It is saying all the salient points are already included without giving any ground to those trying to stifle criticism of Israel.

It kinda looks to me like you're both saying the same thing, or at least that you're agreed on principles, if not the piece.

 

[agricola]

How about an English homeland? We very clearly understand what it means when people talk about England being a land for the English.

There are Jews in London, New York, Berlin etc.

Surely this is their homeland.

"England for the English" is at least as daft as it is a racially loaded term though; if that is what "the English" want then they should really go back to Angeln.

 

[8ball]

"England for the English" is at least as daft as it is a racially loaded term though; if that is what "the English" want then they should really go back to Angeln.

I think that was my point. Might have made it badly.

 

[pseudonarcissus]

Someone needs to say the Labour Party will now officially adopt the IHRA code. However any additions or so called examples will not be adopted by the party. It's as simple as that and anyone who doesn't agree should feel free to leave the Labour Party.

I’m wondering whether to resign, or just not renew under protest. It’s appaling that this has been going on so long. Just sign up to the code and move on. If some activists have to be dumped due to past indiscretions on Twitter, so be it. This is after the age it took to get rid of Ken. Even that wasn’t done by the Party. If the party currently stinks of anti-semitism, maybe it is. Even if, mainly, the guilt is by association.

 

[Gramsci]

I’m wondering whether to resign, or just not renew under protest. It’s appaling that this has been going on so long. Just sign up to the code and move on. If some activists have to be dumped due to past indiscretions on Twitter, so be it. This is after the age it took to get rid of Ken. Even that wasn’t done by the Party. If the party currently stinks of anti-semitism, maybe it is. Even if, mainly, the guilt is by association.

As belboid has pointed out the Labour party has signed up to the IHRA definition. This is beyond dispute.

Repeat belboid link

Why turning to Jewish exceptionalism to fight antisemitism is a failing project

The definition is separate from the examples. This is good article to read. After all the news made issues more clear to me.

Imo whatever Corbyn does won't be good enough.

 

[classicdish]

IMO they should now refute all the examples and adopt the code only. It's not rocket science.

The IHRA definition is as follows:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

Using this alone as a 'code of conduct' would be more-or-less useless.

The new NEC Code of Conduct includes "a series of guidelines designed to help all those involved with the Party and its disciplinary processes understand what kind of behaviour is likely to be considered antisemitic, and – where a complaint is made – decide whether breach of Clause 2.I.8 has occurred."

(Clause 2.I.8 is the 'basic conduct rule' referring to conduct "which in the opinion of the NEC is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NEC is grossly detrimental to the Party")

If the Labour Party Code of Conduct doesn't contain any guidelines the issue isn't going to magically disappear - it just means that the party would be faced with endless disciplinary hearings which would either end up setting 'de facto' rules or lead to a never-ending proxy war.

 

[19force8]

The IHRA definition is as follows:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities

Using this alone as a 'code of conduct' would be more-or-less useless.

I'm not convinced it's even any use as a definition. The reason it needs examples is because it's so bloody vague. There are plenty of better definitions. They could have chosen the simple dictionary definition:

hostility to or prejudice against Jews

or Holocaust scholar and City University of New York professor Helen Fein's more nuanced definition:

a persisting latent structure of hostile beliefs towards Jews as a collective manifested in individuals as attitudes, and in culture as myth, ideology, folklore and imagery, and in actions—social or legal discrimination, political mobilization against the Jews, and collective or state violence—which results in and/or is designed to distance, displace, or destroy Jews as Jews.

from Antisemitism - Wikipedia

 

[19force8]

Being seen to be in dispute with a whole community (not that Labour is, but quite a lot of people are not listening) is the kind of thing that could contribute to a critical mass of difficulty. Particularly when every action works like a Jedi power in reverse making the opponent stronger.

Maybe it won’t affect the overall vote much, but in constituencies with a high Jewish vote it certainly will.

Possible grounds for a press complaint at the least, but then another action that fans the flames.

If you recall, the "Jewish vote" was lost by Miliband according to the same papers - over recognition of Palestine.

In 2015 it went roughly 25% for Labour and 60% for the Tories. Virtually identical to the figures in 2017 - ie after the first round of "Corbyn is an anti semite."

So you're right it won't affect the overall vote, but it is distracting from what should be the main political news - the corrupt, mendacious shambles we have in place of a government.

Ho hum

 

[pseudonarcissus]

As belboid has pointed out the Labour party has signed up to the IHRA definition. This is beyond dispute.

Repeat belboid link

Why turning to Jewish exceptionalism to fight antisemitism is a failing project

The definition is separate from the examples. This is good article to read. After all the news made issues more clear to me.

Imo whatever Corbyn does won't be good enough.

Logic be damned. I don’t see, at this stage, with the damage that has been done, what Labour hopes to gain from not adopting the full list of examples. Corbyn will always have to work harder because he has shared platforms with some unsavoury characters (and TV channels). There was also the long dragged out saga about Ken...who really did say some stupid things..and it took far too long for him to disappear.
Presenting a fair and nuanced opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the days of twitter is almost impossible. Unfortunately it’s one reason it appears to be intractable.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Which examples are missing?

Ones which conflate the state of Israel with Jewish people in general.

 

[killer b]

I think one key thing is the legal aspect Wagner raised in the twitter thread on the last page: Labour party members dealt with and censured under this new code will be labelled de facto racists: this does open them up to legal challenge which will only drag the whole thing out even longer.

A friend of a friend is a long-time Palestine solidarity campaigner, and is one of the members who has been suspended for some time pending investigation, he says because of a facebook post almost a decade old (I haven't seen the post in question so I can't comment on whether he's got a case to answer or not).

He's said he will go to the law should he be expelled over this, and I've no doubt he will. I've also no doubt that these kinds of considerations are behind the lengthy dragging out of what are likely to be borderline cases.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Flipping heck. No more growing veg for you JC.

Barnet Council begins discussion about stripping Jeremy Corbyn of his allotment over Labour Party antisemitism

 

[pseudonarcissus]

What sort of crazy disc

I think one key thing is the legal aspect Wagner raised in the twitter thread on the last page: Labour party members dealt with and censured under this new code will be labelled de facto racists: this does open them up to legal challenge which will only drag the whole thing out even longer.

A friend of a friend is a long-time Palestine solidarity campaigner, and is one of the members who has been suspended for some time pending investigation, he says because of a facebook post almost a decade old (I haven't seen the post in question so I can't comment on whether he's got a case to answer or not).

He's said he will go to the law should he be expelled over this, and I've no doubt he will. I've also no doubt that these kinds of considerations are behind the lengthy dragging out of what are likely to be borderline cases.

What sort of crazy disciplinary process means this can’t be dealt with in an afternoon? The party has been dragging these cases and allowing them to fester, to nobody’s advantage. 10 year old Facebook post...look at the context...anger against civilian deaths, for example, see if it’s been repeated..and move on. Some people, like the councillor in the news last week, the party is probably best shot of, but old social media posts could surely be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction quickly...for Leadership positions there is a higher standard, and the party should do better due diligence