Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[rummo]

So, for you, it doesn't matter whether or not some specific words or action are antisemitic, (according to the IHMC's definition), it's those emanating from 'the left' that are qualitatively worse in some way? Have I read that right?

The other issue of course is that the IHRA definition is 'problematic'. Though to suggest such a thing is now in itself probably a disciplinary matter for party members.

Stephen Sedley · Defining Anti-Semitism

www.lrb.co.uk

 

[brogdale]

The other issue of course is that the IHRA definition is 'problematic'. Though to suggest such a thing is now in itself probably a disciplinary matter for party members.

Stephen Sedley · Defining Anti-Semitism

www.lrb.co.uk

That's obviously very debatable in itself, but AFAIA the LP democratically decided to adopt the entire thing, so I'm not sure that is particularly an issue in this discussion.

 

[bimble]

OK, I get how a Jewish socialist might well experience a particular pain of betrayal if fellow socialists were to behave in an antisemitic way, but when you said,

I got the impression that your view of 'left' antisemitism didn't just derive from a such a personal perspective but was based on the antisemitism emanating from the left being objectively different in form than 'the standard' form that you exemplified.

It is different. If you have no grasp of this at all - of left antisemitism as a phenomenon discrete from the bog standard, even after the last several years of this convo being everywhere, i'm a bit at a loss as to how you can be interested enough in this topic to keep popping up here asking me bizarre questions.
But also never mind, the old man is back on the back benches and its late so i'm out for today.

 

[killer b]

Oh wow, the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Is it 2017 again? Are we stuck in some kind of endless loop?

 

[rummo]

That's obviously very debatable in itself, but AFAIA the LP democratically decided to adopt the entire thing, so I'm not sure that is particularly an issue in this discussion.

But the fact that the LP accepted the definition and it's now verbotten to question it is instructive in itself about the whole context. It's a constant push in one direction.

 

[brogdale]

It is different. If you have no grasp of this at all - of left antisemitism as a phenomenon discrete from the bog standard, even after the last several years of this convo being everywhere, i'm a bit at a loss as to how you can be interested enough in this topic to keep popping up here asking me bizarre questions.
But also never mind, the old man is back on the back benches and its late so i'm out for today.

OK, sorry if my questions have caused upset; they really were only meant to be contributions to the discussion on this thread about Corbyn and his suspension etc.
I don't profess to have any particular knowledge of antisemitism on the 'left' and was genuinely hoping that you'd express what you felt it meant.
On the specifics of this issue of LP antisemitism, at the very start of the 'Findings' section of the Executive Summary of the ECHR report, it says that the most serious unlawful acts included "...using antisemitic tropes and suggesting that complaints of antisemitism were fake or smears."
To me that sounds very much like the 'sharp elbowed' trope that you identified as "standard" antisemitism; that's what i was getting at.

 

[rummo]

Oh wow, the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Is it 2017 again? Are we stuck in some kind of endless loop?

No it's not a loop, it's a one way street.

 

[brogdale]

But the fact that the LP accepted the definition and it's now verbotten to question it is instructive in itself about the whole context. It's a constant push in one direction.

To me that seems like an issue for LP members?

 

[two sheds]

Although it applies to everyone so not just an issue for LP members.

 

[brogdale]

Although it applies to everyone so not just an issue for LP members.

Maybe, but as an institution they've formally decided to adopt it.

 

[rummo]

To me that seems like an issue for LP members?

What about voters?

 

[two sheds]

Maybe, but as an institution they've formally decided to adopt it.

True, but if someone criticizes Israel for treatment of Palestinians without criticizing (for example) China for similar actions then they'll be labelled as antisemitic using that definition.

 

[brogdale]

What about voters?

They can vote, or not, for who they like?

 

[brogdale]

True, but if someone criticizes Israel for treatment of Palestinians without criticizing (for example) China for similar actions then they'll be labelled as antisemitic using that definition.

Maybe (?)...but this thread is about the LP and specifically Corbyn.

 

[two sheds]

True, true, but the rules apply to them too

we now seem to be going round in circles here

I think it was worth noting that they are problematic

 

[brogdale]

True, true, but the rules apply to them too

we now seem to be going round in circles here

I think it was worth noting that they are problematic

Yep, you or I might think, say some of the IHMC guidelines/examples threaten free speech about Israeli policy etc. but the LP (under Corbyn) decided to adopt the lot so, 'problematic' or not, that's the bar against which the party has chosen to be judged.

 

[rummo]

The relevance of that definition of anti semitism is that its purpose is to conflate anti semitism with criticism of Israel. So it's about weaponising the subject of anti semitism.

 

[Humberto]

It's governments that are setting us against one another rather than racism just springing out of some seemingly never ending sewage-flow. The ruling-class profits from war and from controlling resources. The public facing representatives of this class specialise in fucking everything up for us on their master's behalf. They are fucking filth. They poison every discourse, take money and power for nothing in return and act like they are of irreproachable principle and dignity. I mean, everyone doesn't want to walk into disaster, but the ruling class can't do anything for us.

So, not to be too 'angry man shouts at cloud', they none of them would seem to be capable of organising a pissup in a brewery, and they then blame everyone but themselves, us. That's just my opinion from the sidelines. Most of them (i.e. parliamentarians) haven't got their heart in the right place to begin with. The newspapers and TV news networks have gone down hill at the same time as social media sharp men are filling the void. We, the non-Tories, should bury Labour and move on. Whatever that means in practice, I don't know. I guess these PLP timeserving careerists can come to us if they ever come up with something. Are they even on 'our side'? Can't see it myself.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

This is a brilliant strategy.

‘Starmer wants the left out’
‘How do we stop him’
‘All resign the whip’

It’s very hard to see how the right of the Party always come out on top when faced with such disciplined savvy ‘left’ thinkers like this..

Starmer, Corbyn and the Labour whip: this is a war against the left

Withholding the whip from Corbyn is unjustifiable.

www.counterfire.org

 

[Mr Moose]

This is a brilliant strategy.

‘Starmer wants the left out’
‘How do we stop him’
‘All resign the whip’

It’s very hard to see how the right of the Party always come out on top when faced with such disciplined savvy ‘left’ thinkers like this..

Starmer, Corbyn and the Labour whip: this is a war against the left

Withholding the whip from Corbyn is unjustifiable.

www.counterfire.org

Crikey, it doesn’t appear, that even now there is any consideration whatsoever that Corbyn may not be the right hill to die on. ‘Corbyn can only be defended...’. How about Corbyn tries to work this problem out for himself rather than everyone resign for him?

There are two ways forward. Dig in and claim Corbyn was blameless, which inevitably leads to some denial of the problem with his base, or be contrite about the EHRC report and work positively which requires Corbyn at a minimum not to add to the problem by appearing to argue. Better still he becomes an exemplar, something he yet could do.

But at the moment it’s all about Corbyn again with no consideration that righteous anger on his behalf will get badly directed by some. ‘Corbyn has a record of fighting racism...second to none’ it says. Is that it? Is that unarguable? In the face of the report that’s all there is to say?

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Crikey, it doesn’t appear, that even now there is any consideration whatsoever that Corbyn may not be the right hill to die on. ‘Corbyn can only be defended...’. How about Corbyn tries to work this problem out for himself rather than everyone resign for him?

There are two ways forward. Dig in and claim Corbyn was blameless, which inevitably leads to some denial of the problem with his base, or be contrite about the EHRC report and work positively which requires Corbyn at a minimum not to add to the problem by appearing to argue. Better still he becomes an exemplar, something he yet could do.

But at the moment it’s all about Corbyn again with no consideration that righteous anger on his behalf will get badly directed by some. ‘Corbyn has a record of fighting racism...second to none’ it says. Is that it? Is that unarguable? In the face of the report that’s all there is to say?

If you read the report you'll see that it actually has very little to say about the extent of anti semitism in the party, primarily in my view because its prevalence is vanishingly small. But the attack on Corbyn is symbolic of a rightwards lurch in policy, an attempt at stifling discussion and debate and an attack on the left in general. If you are a Labour member who still thinks it is worth staying in the party then Corbyn is the hill to die on, at the moment anyway, cos a lot of party members who may not be Corbynite think he has been unfairly treated and may rally round. Last chance saloon.

 

[bimble]

'Exceptionalism' really is a fucking arse of an expectation and the worse kind of emotionally immature and intellectually dishonest manipulation.

Still vaguely wonder what this post was about, seeing as there wasn't any context for it that might have explained what group of people are being described here, never mind it is a mystery.

 

[Badgers]

Fwiw I don't think JC is an antisemite just a bit of a silly old man, too steeped in his little righteous world to be able to learn anything.

Sad to see you type that

 

[bimble]

Sad to see you type that

sorry to disappoint you badgers.

 

[Badgers]

sorry to disappoint you badgers.

That is okay. After all you are just a silly old person.

 

[two sheds]

That is okay. After all you are just a silly old person.

I think you'll find that's me you're talking about now

 

[killer b]

After 5 years and the total destruction of his political programme, you'd have thought if he was a man given to reflection and flexibility he might have stopped the 'as there is throughout society..' equivocation on antisemitism by now.

 

[Badgers]

I think you'll find that's me you're talking about now

No problem. I will leave you and the others to debate Corbyn on policy and then play him at chess. Let me know how it goes.

 

[two sheds]

sorry to disappoint you badgers.

Hardly true though. Among other things he inspired people to swing Labour leftwards, greatly increase labour party membership, get bloody close to getting rid of the tories in 2017 despite uniform hatred from the media and the right of the party working against him.

 

[Badgers]

Hardly true though. Among other things he inspired people to swing Labour leftwards, greatly increase labour party membership, get bloody close to getting rid of the tories in 2017 despite uniform hatred from the media and the right of the party working against him.

Silly old fool wasting his time on such things.