Corbyn's Magnetism

lemon don’t be offensive.

Thanks, dj.

Having read that, which certainly does seem reasonable, I then found this via Bloomberg in which Ockerman (aka Mear One) is quoted as saying, in response to some questions by Bloomberg, that the painting was not anti-Semitic: “though historically several of the characters may be of Jewish decent [sic] or ideology, my intention was to illustrate the privileged elite upper-ruling class.”

Which sounds more fudgy than clear cut.

I must say I didn't realise the characters were 'of Jewish descent' until someone pointed out its obviousness.

Is where the mural was painted significant as well as what was painted?

Seems Brick Lane was historically a Jewish area. I think that answers my question and confirms the artist's fudging.

^ which is at odds with what most people think.^

Oh dear.

When most people thought that the sun went round the earth the fact that 'most people' thought it didn't actually make it true.

That's just herd mentality.

So Corbyn is of herd mentality as well MaizieD?
You can’t have this all ways you know.

I don't think it sounds more fudgy.
The Rothschilds are Jewish. So are the Lehmans and Goldbergs.
I didn't think about them being Jewish, either, just rich bankers.
The Bloombergs are Jewish as well.

Exactly baggs ....not that it matters now that it is cleaned off the building, but it did matter.

I'm not sure how admitting that some leading bankers are Jewish and painting them as such is "anti-Semitic. I don't read that as "fudgy". The alternative would be never to paint the truth if someone might object and I seem to remember people dying at Charlie Hebdo for the right to offend and us applauding them for doing it.

There is a law against inciting hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion. This was brought in by the Labour Party so I would say well done to them on that. All people of religion may use it equally and it is a good law.

On the other hand anti-Semitism means hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews. Discrimination isn't good and in some circumstances my be illegal. The word anti-Semitism however, being used to attack others generally, in the press and on here. I can see no good coming from this. If you misuse the protection that you have been given because of the past, and cry wolf at the drop of a hat just in order to attack people you disagree with it will, in the end, rebound. And that worries me.

I wish someone who is in favour of destroying art they consider anti-semitic would engage with a discussion about what other ideas they find repugnant and what other grounds they have for destroying art. They won't because it isn't a question they have addressed. They have in fact jumped on the bandwagon, or adopted the herd mentality, and simply echoed cricism they have read some where. Only authoritarian regimes, both left and right wing, feel the need to censor art.
Baggs Brick Lane historically was an area with many different races and immigrant communities, the Jewish community was one of many. It is now an area famed for its street art, which is why the mural was there.

Who is ‘misusing the protection that you have been given because of the past’ ? Are you saying that Jewish people have been doing wrong? What wrong?
Who has cried wolf? Again, Jewish people?
Are you entirely serious?
Jewish people have much to complain about ( not that many do, most are so used to flak coming their way they mainly shrug and get on with it.)

She didn't say that, lemon. How do you read that into what GracesGran said?

‘misusing the protection that you have been given because of the past’

the illegal occupation of Palestine and the way the Palestinians- is indeed the exact illustration of that. Most of my Jewish friends agree too, and are disgusted by the sheer cruelty and injustice of Zionism.

And that, does NOT make me anti-semitic, at all- in any way shape or form.

Anybody and any race or religion can do that. Certainly not antisemitic, jura. On the other hand, if Corbyn wrote that...

I've also been wondering about why the fact that a piece of art is seen as offensive that it should be destroyed. A lot of art (not just paintings) is regarded by some people as offensive. Some of it is meant to be if not offensive, then at least controversial and provoking. We either believe in free expression or we don't.

Depictions of naked human beings holding up the edifices of the rich are not uncommon.

That has nothing to do with British Jews living in London jura and nobody has said that Zionism is the same as anti-semitism.
Unfortunately I think that some in the LP are so concerned with Palestine (and Zionism) that they do confuse the two things and end up disliking Jews because of it.There is no other answer for it really.

I still think Ockerman's 'message' in that mural and what he has said about it (what I've seen anyway) is fudgy. He's allowed to be fudgy. Issues are never simply black and white.

Who in the Labour Party has said they dislike Jews?

If the men in the mural were obviously Muslim baggs or black, it would be seen as a hate crime.This isn’t tucked away in an art gallery but on the street. The street you have to walk down every day, for some.

So you don't believe him when he said it was nothing to do with antisemitism?

Is it, lemon? I thought it had been got rid of in 2012.

Ask Corbyn durhamjen !
He is the one issuing messages tonight about ‘stamping it out of our Party’ and apologising.

It didn’t go soon enough.

twitter.com/JennieUnite

So where is the mural now, lemon?

If currently those in great leading positions in banking were Muslim lemongrove, how would you suggest they were depicted in a painting?

I have no idea why you would suggest there is any difference with it being on a street or in a gallery. You seem to be advocating censorship which is set by your standards - not law. I seem to remember someone saying of Lady Chatterley "...but you wouldn't want your wife or your servant to read it?"

Who would you allow to see it and form their own opinion?