Labour anti-semitism

GracesGranMk3 Thank you for your posts about the IHRA definition of anti-semitism and its lack of legal standing. I tried sometime ago to get a proper debate about this. About why it was accepted as it stands by the UK Parliament in spite of a recommendation by a sub-committee that it had problems and that additional information should be added-namely
We broadly accept the IHRA definition, but propose two additional clarifications to ensure that freedom of speech is maintained in the context of discourse about Israel and Palestine, without allowing antisemitism to permeate any debate. The definition should include the following statements:

It is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.
It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent
We recommend that the IHRA definition, with our additional caveats, should be formally adopted by the UK Government, law enforcement agencies and all political parties, to assist them in determining whether or not an incident or discourse can be regarded as antisemitic.
Why this was never widely reported or why the additional caveats were never introduced remains a mystery.
Thans for the posts about alternative Jewish voices.

It is my belief that I have, if that is not clear to you it is because you have not or cannot understand my opinion,there isn’t a lot either of us can do about that.

Bridgeit Sat 08-Jun-19 11:52:11
Well yes GG you can blame your lack of understanding on my inabilities if you wish.

But you have made no attempt to clarify. Why would you not do that if your opinion is valuable to you? You surely do not think that everyone can understand you all the time? I think you would be beginning to apply the word arrogant to me if I implied such a thing. This is becoming rather childish if you will not explain what you meant. I don't mind it that makes you think I am of lesser intelligence or whatever, but you could make the effort.

Hence the need at timefor outside bodies to intervene & make judgements ref offence

Often found in self-opinionated people, this is not necessarily a negative attribute, but at times it is out of place.

Aren't all those who chose to post on the political threads opinionated? If we did not hold an opinion we would not be bothering to put one forward.

You seem to just be saying that I will not conform with yours and that, because of this, you have the right to be personally offensive. Why would that be?

GracesganMk3 - you think I have 'muddled up all the ways people may choose to be offended together'.
I don't agree with you of course. I 'think' that you enjoy getting into pointless rows with posters who take a different view than you do.
I try to avoid making such critical comments about other people but I've had enough.

Well yes GG you can blame your lack of understanding on my inabilities if you wish.

Grany (Sat 08-Jun-19 11:35:17). Thank you so much for posting those tweets - from the horse's mouth so to speak. If I can work out how to do it I will post them on FaceBook.

Your lack of understanding could be attributed to a lack of sensitive for others.

Or Bridgeit, as I assume that was aimed at me, your inability to make your thinking clear. That was why I was asking for clarification. Then you choose to be offensive rather than clarify. It does work both ways you know.

Often found in self-opinionated people, this is not necessarily a negative attribute, but at times it is out of place.

Your lack of understanding could be attributed to a lack of sensitive for others.

To offend or be offended involves a process.
For those who have difficulty understanding other peoples sensitivity, personal preferences, the Law gives guidance to help those who may lack in understanding of said human sensitivities

That is why at times outside ‘bodies’ need to establish if there was an intention to cause offence.

Which outside bodies and what sort of "offence" are we talking about here Bridgit? I would be very worried about any other body, other than parliament and the judiciary being able to impose their beliefs on others. That doesn't feel at all safe for society.

I suppose Companies have rules but they have to be ones that can be upheld in law. Really not sure what you mean.

First in a series of videos presenting largely overlooked Jewish voices, historian and journalist Geoffrey Alderman offers his perspective on #Labour

twitter.com/JustJewsUK/status/1136936125795377152?s=20

Another Jewish professor whose family have known Corbyn for decades
Professor Annabelle Sreberny

twitter.com/TheBirmingham6/status/1137017778974732288?s=20

So freedom of speech, yes but we all have individual responsibility and so far as racism, antisemitism, homophobia etc, etc go I think we can all benefit from thinking on

Those all come under the law Iam. As I said our responsibility is to obey the law. I am not sure what point you are making.

That is why at times outside ‘bodies’ need to establish if there was an intention to cause offence .

I think you have muddled all the ways people may choose to be offended together Iam. But it is a choice both to offend and to take offence.

When we are bringing our children up we are giving them very complex messages. We do want them to be kind and thoughtful but we also want them to be resilient and able to argue for the important things in life. I am afraid some people grow up believing that just disagreeing with them is offensive.

I thought we were talking about offending others views, not being offensive about them personally. Perhaps not.

I agree with you Bridgeit but then, I don't think I said it was.

This discussion is beginning to remind me of the way some of the offensive things people say (or chant at football matches for eg) are justified as being "only banter". I expect most of us were quite strict with our children about not saying hurtful things. Schools are working hard to eliminate bullying, which includes using words to undermine and humiliate others.
So freedom of speech yes but we all have individual responsibility and so far as racism, anti semitism, homophobia etc etc go I think we can all benefit from thinking on

REf GGMK3, not Grannygravy

You may have a ‘right’ to offend GG , but it doesn’t not necessarily follow that it is ‘right ‘to offend or cause offence.

(13 Sat 08-Jun-19 10:43:45)

How do I contact that police unit GrannyGravy?

We have free speech in the UK, but it comes with responsibility.
Responsibility not to offend, discriminate or do harm.
(Sat 08-Jun-19 10:25:14)

That is just your opinion GrannyGravy13. The only limit on freedom of speech is the law. Little would have been changed over history if we had always taken care not to offend. Discrimination and harm are both dealt with by the law as is offence when it is racist, etc. In order to have any form of equality, the law has to be the last arbiter or those who manipulate society are.

I do not agree that I may not offend your views; they may need to be offended. While we have the right to hold an opinion we also have the right to offend. Je suis Charlie! - remember.

MaizieD I agree.

We now have a dedicated police unit for just that, dealing with social media posts that are reported as “being intended to harm”, along with the racist, libellous and menacing ones.

or do harm.

Well, how do you police that one? You can find speech that 'harms' everywhere. It is all over this forum for a start.

Whether it is passing on ill informed or untrue stories about politicians or just being obnoxious to or about other posters, it harms...