Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Labour & Anti-Semitism.

Clause 4 was put in place by the right of the party - by the fabians ffs - to put a lid on anti-capitalism. It was never anything but rhetoric designed to stop the party splitting. People used to know this before Corbyn. Basic labour history.

Leo Panitch talks about this, doesn't he - the history of Labour as a party of class harmony, not class conflict. Representatives of all classes, including but not limited to the subordinate classes, absorbed easily, happily & permanently into key institutions & structures, etc.
 
“I want to look at two self-appointed watchdogs who have played a hugely destructive role in exacerbating the crisis“

That river in Egypt springs to mind
 
“I want to look at two self-appointed watchdogs who have played a hugely destructive role in exacerbating the crisis“

That river in Egypt springs to mind
How so? The author is quite clear that Labour members have used anti-Semitic tropes and that the party has been ineffective at dealing with the issue. Indeed part of his criticism of the two groups is that their actions actually interfere with the tackling of anti-semitism.

EDIT: Not to mention some of the comments of Gnasher/LAAS are themselves anti-semitic.
 
Last edited:
Jackie Walker’s been expelled for standing up to Jewish slave-financiers/bringing the party into disrepute

And to to think she even did a dance outside the offices.
 
These twats wouldn't know real persecution if it fell on their grandma.

Get these tactless dicks out of the Labour party, doesnt matter their colour or religion they're part of the problem - the fact that Icke Beeley Williamson and all the other scummy antisemites out there are lining up to support them is telling in itself.
 
Jackie Walker is the victim of a witch hunt. A life long anti-racist, labour activist of black and jewish parantage stitched up at by rightwingers and opportunists of all hues. Here are the comments she made in a private exchange in context:

"Oh yes – and I hope you feel the same towards the African holocaust? My ancestors were involved in both – on all sides as I'm sure you know, millions more Africans were killed in the African holocaust and their oppression continues today on a global scale in a way it doesn't for Jews... and many Jews (my ancestors too) were the chief financiers of the sugar and slave trade which is of course why there were so many early synagogues in the Caribbean. So who are victims and what does it mean? We are victims and perpetrators to some extent through choice. And having been a victim does not give you a right to be a perpetrator.'

After her comments were made public she clarified:

"Yes, I wrote 'many Jews (my ancestors too) were the chief financiers of the sugar and slave trade'. These words, taken out of context in the way the media did, of course do not reflect my position. I was writing to someone who knew the context of my comments. Had he felt the need to pick me up on what I had written I would have rephrased – perhaps to 'Jews (my ancestors too) were among those who financed the sugar and slave trade and at the particular time/in the particular area I'm talking about they played an important part.' ... [My claim] has never been that Jews played a disproportionate role in the Atlantic Slave Trade, merely that, as historians such as Arnold Wiznitzer noted, at a certain economic point, in specific regions where my ancestors lived, Jews played a dominant role 'as financiers of the sugar industry, as brokers and exporters of sugar, and as suppliers of Negro slaves on credit."

I agree wholeheartedly with Jon Lansman's assessment of this conversation:

"The conversation was one about her own heritage, and the roles of both victim and perpetrator played by her own direct ancestors. Some of her direct Jewish antecedents were, according to her own genealogical research, involved in the financing and operation of the slave trade. It was a serious discussion about how one is a victim or perpetrator “to some extent through choice” in the context of her own heritage and current debates about racism. In my view, the tone and context of that conversation makes absolutely clear that nothing about it were antisemitic."

The same is true of all the other decontextualised quotes that are supposed to implicate Jackie. I'm absolutely disgusted that another decent, anti-racist has been vilified by the racist, pro-Apartheid propagandists (in Lansman's words a '“lynch mob” whose interest in combatting racism is highly selective').
 
Jackie Walker is the victim of a witch hunt. A life long anti-racist, labour activist of black and jewish parantage stitched up at by rightwingers and opportunists of all hues. Here are the comments she made in a private exchange in context:



After her comments were made public she clarified:



I agree wholeheartedly with Jon Lansman's assessment of this conversation:



The same is true of all the other decontextualised quotes that are supposed to implicate Jackie. I'm absolutely disgusted that another decent, anti-racist has been vilified by the racist, pro-Apartheid propagandists (in Lansman's words a '“lynch mob” whose interest in combatting racism is highly selective').
Completely disagree. She’s a liability, and if I was a Labour member I’d want rid of her. She either knows the line she’s walking in her comments, in which case she’s at best playing with bigotry, or she doesn’t, in which case she’s an idiot. Either way, they’re well shot of her.
 
Completely disagree. She’s a liability, and if I was a Labour member I’d want rid of her. She either knows the line she’s walking in her comments, in which case she’s at best playing with bigotry, or she doesn’t, in which case she’s an idiot. Either way, they’re well shot of her.

She's the victim of a smear campaign launched by the most unprincipled, bullying, racist elements within the Labour Party (i.e. the pro-apartheid lot). I am appalled by the harassment, bullying and threats she's received from the apartheid cheerleaders. It's the latter who should be kicked out of the party, not their victim.
 
Completely disagree. She’s a liability, and if I was a Labour member I’d want rid of her. She either knows the line she’s walking in her comments, in which case she’s at best playing with bigotry, or she doesn’t, in which case she’s an idiot. Either way, they’re well shot of her.
I dont have much sympathy for her - she's a raging egotist who only really gives a shit about Jackie Walker, and walking out of her hearing did her no favours. But the above isn't really true, and if someone is to be expelled from an organisation, it should be for what they have actually done, rather than because they're simply annoying gobshites. And they should be able to defend themselves fairly - ie adding additional charges in a long running case isn't really on, is it?

The first complaint was over a private facebook conversation taken out of context (as explained in Jeff's post). The second was a supposedly private training session where participants were encouraged to ask awkward questions in private. To then release a video of those 'awkward questions' is inherently wrong. And one of those awkward questions - about why african genocides carried out by western imperialism, are so much less commemorated than the European holocaust - is a perfectly fair enough question.

If she is as stupid as you are saying, and she regularly and repeatedly plays with that line between asking awkward questions and simply giving voice to reactionary/racist arguments, then there would be a list as long as your arm, wouldn't there? But there isn't.
 
'Be an annoying gobshite' is something they've done though.

Being an annoying gobshite is something everyone has done.

She seems like someone working through a few issues. That’s always been necessary for some (and an important part of politics to help people do that) but it doesn’t play well in the days of social media with a press ready to seize on anything that can be presented badly without a care for any nuance.
 
Being an annoying gobshite is something everyone has done.

She seems like someone working through a few issues. That’s always been necessary for some (and an important part of politics to help people do that) but it doesn’t play well in the days of social media with a press ready to seize on anything that can be presented badly without a care for any nuance.
Life isn't a membership organisation.

Jeff talks about full context - does he know who JW was talking to and the full context of their private conversation?

In the three years since Corbyn has been elected she has pranced around on the line of jew-baiting - in a situation of madly focused scrutiny on the people she claims to support for exactly this stuff. She has no place on the left full-stop never mind the labour party. The charge of “prejudicial and grossly detrimental behaviour against the party” - which isn't a judgement on the partial remarks posted above in suggestion that they were the full remarks - is undeniable. It might be a catch-all administrative manouvere, but it's def caught her.
 
Last edited:
I dont have much sympathy for her - she's a raging egotist who only really gives a shit about Jackie Walker, and walking out of her hearing did her no favours. But the above isn't really true, and if someone is to be expelled from an organisation, it should be for what they have actually done, rather than because they're simply annoying gobshites. And they should be able to defend themselves fairly - ie adding additional charges in a long running case isn't really on, is it?

The first complaint was over a private facebook conversation taken out of context (as explained in Jeff's post). The second was a supposedly private training session where participants were encouraged to ask awkward questions in private. To then release a video of those 'awkward questions' is inherently wrong. And one of those awkward questions - about why african genocides carried out by western imperialism, are so much less commemorated than the European holocaust - is a perfectly fair enough question.

If she is as stupid as you are saying, and she regularly and repeatedly plays with that line between asking awkward questions and simply giving voice to reactionary/racist arguments, then there would be a list as long as your arm, wouldn't there? But there isn't.

In the context of the conversations she was having, and given her own ethnic background I don't think I have actually read anything that clearly outlines what was wrong with her comments. Lots of suggestion that 'she can't say that', a fuckton of snidey 'self hating Jew' comments at the time this story broke as I recall, and then there were the really nasty insinuations and indirect questioning of her actual 'Jewishness'.

It would be interesting to know how others think she could have had those conversations without saying what she did and what people think gives them the right to decide how she is allowed to interact with and describe her relationship and thoughts about her own hertitage/history.
 
Back
Top Bottom