• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Its the same in the US, their Tommy Robinson aka Trump tapped into the generation left behind by the dwindling of industries and no plan B.

Wrong or right the biggest problem with politics is lack of dialogue with those that matter, people don't want to be talked at but engaged and in this age you won't get away with it, social media is so powerful and full of so much crap you have to be on point every step of the way, you can't allow your voters to believe the lies and thats as much the responsibility of those in power to maintain a status quo as it is those peddling the liews. regardless of class and status now people smell flimflam or at least being brushed off.

Thats why we ended up with Brexit in my opinion. The legacy of being talked to and the promise of a better future for general election votes that ended up with no outcome.

Brexit was probably the frustration of the unheard voice for 30/40 years
Largely agree but I would add that the EU has been an easy spacegoat for failure for both parties over the last 30 years.
 
I think there obviously is a problem. Look at how the party, Corbyn included, repeatedly tried to add to the party definition of anti-Semitism to specifically allow criticism of Israel. Imagine a similar equality clause where they agreed not to be racist but insisted on being able to criticise the level of crime committed by black people, or an anti-sexism clause where they insisted women couldn't logic.

Large chunks of the Labour party (including its "leader") consider it more important for their own party to criticise the actions of Israel than to protect the rights of an oppressed people. Not only that, but they continually conflate the two issues, something which has some very concerning outcomes IMO.

OK, so I say that there's an issue with Nigerians conning people through e-mail pretending that I've inherited a fudge ton from a distant relative king. I say Nigeria's government should do more to combat these crimes. Am I condemning all black people? Am I condemning all Nigerians? No? If that's the case explain how Israel is any different?

As for 'agreed not to be racist but insisted on being able to criticise the level of crime committed by black people' - It's completely different. How in anyway is it the same as saying 'the level of crime committed by black people' or 'anti-sexism clause where they insisted women couldn't logic' - both of those would be bad because they comment on a protected characteristic. Excuse me if I'm wrong but I don't see any reason why the state of Israel is representative of all Jewish people? That by criticising Israel and its policies I am therefore criticisng all jews?

If anything I would be committing antisemitism to assume that a state based on the Jewish Torah is therefore representative of all Jews, that all Jews are the same. Just as much as I would be wrong to assume that the Saudi-Arabian state, the Iranian state, the Taliban, ISIS, or any other state/ quasi-state for that matter is representative of all Muslims.

If I say I abhor the way that ISIS (when they were still relevant) is going about its business and compare them to crusaders trying to infiltrate a foreign land to impose their religious beliefs on the native population, would I therefore be considered an Islamaphobe? Or would I be commenting on ISIS?

As for the last part, the Labour party do so because they can see that there is an oppressed people in what is now called Israel, and those people for what ever reason are refereed to as Palestinains. They've seen nearly all their land being forcibly confiscated from them whilst they're thrown into slums (a bit like that 1930s group.. what they called.... the Nasty party or something similar???) and Labour's definition notes that being able to criticise a country that is throwing people into destitute land and ever so rapidly closing in on them and confiscating property that is not only an acceptable thing to do but is a complete moral right.

In my opinion, the only conflating of Israel and Jews emerges from a definition of antisemtism that infers that Jews and Israel are inseparable - one and the same - two peas in a pod. And to think anything else would be sheer lunacy!
 
OK, so I say that there's an issue with Nigerians conning people through e-mail pretending that I've inherited a fudge ton from a distant relative king. I say Nigeria's government should do more to combat these crimes. Am I condemning all black people? Am I condemning all Nigerians? No? If that's the case explain how Israel is any different?
tl:dr so I'll deal with the first paragraph.

If the Labour party were in the process of writing a "Don't be racist towards Nigerians" charter it would absolutely be racist to insist on a clause that allowed the party to criticise email scammers. Doing so conflates the two and makes a (racist) link between Nigerians and email scammers.
 
Moreover, I would argue that allowing for a definition of antisemitism in which Israel can be criticised is not only moral and acceptable, but also serves the perfect comprise between concentrating on the oppression of certain groups that confronts us here in the present as opposed to those of 70 years ago...

Whilst bearing in mind the lessons from the past regarding allowing groups to do to others as they please through fear of offending them....

Just because the state of Israel, frankly just another country, claims to be representative of the whole Jewish community, which was subjected to oppression 70 years ago, does not give them a free pass to subjugate, destory and oppresss other groups today. To do so would be to lead us into the kind of 'tit-for-tat' age that defined the genocidal period in Rwanda's history.
 
tl:dr so I'll deal with the first paragraph.

If the Labour party were in the process of writing a "Don't be racist towards Nigerians" charter it would absolutely be racist to insist on a clause that allowed the party to criticise email scammers. Doing so conflates the two and makes a (racist) link between Nigerians and email scammers.

So if it allows for a clause in which we can criticise certain countries for committing any atrocity than that is bad?

We should instead ignore atrocities and let the world fall to pieces? What is your alternative? Do we allow Israel to commit genocide or abhor it? It seems a simple question to answer IMO.
 
So if it allows for a clause in which we can criticise certain countries for committing any atrocity than that is bad?

We should instead ignore atrocities and let the world fall to pieces? What is your alternative? Do we allow Israel to commit genocide or abhor it? It seems a simple question to answer IMO.
Yes, of course it's bad. Criticising a disparate race who are spread all over the world for the actions of a country that they may have never even visited is absolutely wrong.
 
tl:dr so I'll deal with the first paragraph.

If the Labour party were in the process of writing a "Don't be racist towards Nigerians" charter it would absolutely be racist to insist on a clause that allowed the party to criticise email scammers. Doing so conflates the two and makes a (racist) link between Nigerians and email scammers.

Lets change your post too:

"I should also add that if the Labour party were in the process of writing a "Don't be racist to Jews" charter it would be absolutely racist to insist on a clause that allowed the party to criticise the state of Israel. Doing so conflates the two and makes a (racist) link between Jewish people and the state of Israel."

That's ironic seeing as that relies upon an individual to interpret the state of Israel as one and the same to make a link.

You must remember it is not Labour making the link in the first instance. It is in response to the fact the traditional definition does not allow for ANY criticism of Israel with regards to race or ethnic cleansing - Meaning if tomorrow Israel rounded up six million Palestinians and put them through the gaschambers - it would be considered anti-semitic to compare that to the Nazis or criticse that as a 'racist endeavour'.

What an absolutely ludicrous fascist world we live in when we can't criticise countries for damaging international relations.
 
Yes, of course it's bad. Criticising a disparate race who are spread all over the world for the actions of a country that they may have never even visited is absolutely wrong.

Well there we are. It's OK to criticise Israel because, low and behold, Israel is not a religion or a race but a country - just as textbooks and encyclopedias all over the world for the last 60+ years have said.

Nothing to see hear, no anti-semitism in labour, and we all move on!

Edit:

Having said what I have above, I should add the disclaimer that of course there will be raicsts, somehow, within the Labour party, just as there are within any party - with the Tories leading the way with that for two centuries since the party was formed, through opposition with the Whigs up till the present day as it stands in government in opposition to Labour. However, the basis for claims of an institutionalise form of anti-Antisemitism have been duly unfounded.

Therefore, we should be left to focus on what this centrist breakaway really stands for - Which is the kind of Blairtie neo-liberal, non-regulatory policies, which as the right themselves have said for many years, 'got us into this mess' - and we should thus be aware of their destructive tendencies.
 
Last edited:
Israel has nothing to do with the majority of Jews. If ‘they’ though think it’s anti semitic if Israel is criticised, then they are wrong!
 
Israel has nothing to do with the majority of Jews. If ‘they’ though think it’s anti semitic if Israel is criticised, then they are wrong!

Indeed, believing that it's OK to use the mass murder of a group that you claim to represent the land off - just to enact and justify your own vicious policies is a sickening endeavour - no mater what way you try to cut it.

It makes me feel for both the groups who have to play bystanders to a confrontation between a state and a foreign political party, and to those who have been led to believe that this state (Israel) represents them. No state can represent an ethnic group - and to claim otherwise is like claiming an Aryan master race represents all whites.

Pure fantasy and ridiculousness.
 
Well there we are. It's OK to criticise Israel because, low and behold, Israel is not a religion or a race but a country - just as textbooks and encyclopedias all over the world for the last 60+ years have said.

Nothing to see hear, no anti-semitism in labour, and we all move on!

Edit:

Having said what I have above, I should add the disclaimer that of course there will be raicsts, somehow, within the Labour party, just as there are within any party - with the Tories leading the way with that for two centuries since the party was formed, through opposition with the Whigs up till the present day as it stands in government in opposition to Labour. However, the basis for claims of an institutionalise form of anti-Antisemitism have been duly unfounded.

Therefore, we should be left to focus on what this centrist breakaway really stands for - Which is the kind of Blairtie neo-liberal, non-regulatory policies, which as the right themselves have said for many years, 'got us into this mess' - and we should thus be aware of their destructive tendencies.
So we're agreed that the actions of Israel as a nation and the actions of millions of Jews all over the world are not related, that's good.

On that basis, how is it even relevant, let alone acceptable to insert a clause into a charter on anti-Semitism to specify that adherents should be allowed to criticise the actions of Israel?
 
So we're agreed that the actions of Israel as a nation and the actions of millions of Jews all over the world are not related, that's good.

On that basis, how is it even relevant, let alone acceptable to insert a clause into a charter on anti-Semitism to specify that adherents should be allowed to criticise the actions of Israel?

Because the ORIGIANL CHARTER which the labour one IS RESPONDING TO says that it IS NOT ACCEPTABLE to criticse Israel. Therefore, it is a defintion proposed by the Lbaour party fully aware that it is a response to the original one.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-anti-semitism-row-definition-ihra-jeremy-corbyn/

"The party decided to accept all 11 examples of Antisemitism and adopt the IHRA definition in full at its second meeting on the issue, in September.

But Jewish groups attacked an accompanying statement agreed by the NEC aimed at protecting free speech about Israel and the rights of Palestinians."

---- Just pause for a second and think about the situation. Here we have a group saying that by reaffirming the rights of the Palestinian people, and stating the Judaism and Israel are not one and the same, probably one of the most anti-anti-Semitic statements you could make, we are persecuting Jews. It is ridiculous.

The way I see it, and here i deviate from anything to just my own views, is that half a century ago abhorrent acts (to say the least) happened against the Jewish community in Germany. Therefore it was considered essential to define what Antisemitism is and what acts constitute it. At the time Israel was an incredibly, incredibly young country and no one could not have foresaw that it would later oppress Palestinians, especially considering everything that you would hope would be in the historical memroies of the people who evacuated to Israel.

It is akin to asserting a clause that says you cannot call the United States of America imperialist because they were under subjugation from the British empire a few hundred years ago, therefore no matter if America bombs Iraqi citizens or has oppressed the Natives within its own borders for for 400 years, it is offensive to suggest that America is anything but pure and free.

I'm sorry, but as a left-winger who is concerned for all people regardless of national residency or background, I don't agree with this (ironically traditionally left-wing) approach that considers it inappropriate for comments to be made about any state regarding the actions it takes with regards to ethnic minorities because of persecution that has since lonst past and has no relevance in the contemporary period off today.

Perhaps you live on a different planet where it is not OK to criticise a state that is slowly murdering minorities and pillaging land - because something happened 70 years ago that isn't even related to the nation being criticised - but that is your crazy prerogative and if you wish to stick by it without any evidence whatsoever to back up your claims be my guest.
 
So we're agreed that the actions of Israel as a nation and the actions of millions of Jews all over the world are not related, that's good.

On that basis, how is it even relevant, let alone acceptable to insert a clause into a charter on anti-Semitism to specify that adherents should be allowed to criticise the actions of Israel?
Because there were loads of instances in the recent past where Israel and friends of Israel were equating criticism of Israel as antisemitism, it was clumsy and wrong but that's where it came from.
 
Because the ORIGIANL CHARTER which the labour one IS RESPONDING TO says that it IS NOT ACCEPTABLE to criticse Israel. Therefore, it is a defintion proposed by the Lbaour party fully aware that it is a response to the original one.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-anti-semitism-row-definition-ihra-jeremy-corbyn/

"The party decided to accept all 11 examples of Antisemitism and adopt the IHRA definition in full at its second meeting on the issue, in September.

But Jewish groups attacked an accompanying statement agreed by the NEC aimed at protecting free speech about Israel and the rights of Palestinians."

---- Just pause for a second and think about the situation. Here we have a group saying that by reaffirming the rights of the Palestinian people, and stating the Judaism and Israel are not one and the same, probably one of the most anti-anti-Semitic statements you could make, we are persecuting Jews. It is ridiculous.
You have to point me towards the part that says one can't criticise Israel. Might be my memory failing but I don't recall that being a clause at all.

Perhaps you live on a different planet where it is not OK to criticise a state that is slowly murdering minorities and pillaging land - because something happened 70 years ago that isn't even related to the nation being criticised - but that is your crazy prerogative and if you wish to stick by it without any evidence whatsoever to back up your claims be my guest.
Actually I don't give much of a fudge about what Israel is doing. They have a bunch of terrorists squatting to one side of them and a country that has vowed to wipe them from the map on the other - all because their imaginary friend tells them it's OK to fudge children but not to treat Jews or women like human beings. Under those circumstances I'd be getting pretty handy with the military too.
 
Last edited:
Because there were loads of instances in the recent past where Israel and friends of Israel were equating criticism of Israel as antisemitism, it was clumsy and wrong but that's where it came from.
But the charter doesn't stop people criticising Israel
 
You read their manifesto? It's the press thats currently bringing it up not the party.

Reading above it looks like it’s quite a strong issue for some Labour people. The party’s leader for another. Didn’t he have meetings with Hammas? An organisation which while some perceive as freedom fighters, most think are a terrorist group.

I didn’t think Labour was particularly anti-Semitic but I can now see it may have a bit of thing for Israel. Which seems strange as there are many worse things happening which need addressing.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
Reading above it looks like it’s quite a strong issue for some Labour people. The party’s leader for another. Didn’t he have meetings with Hammas? An organisation which while some perceive as freedom fighters, most think are a terrorist group.

I didn’t think Labour was particularly anti-Semitic but I can now see it may have a bit of thing for Israel. Which seems strange as there are many worse things happening which need addressing.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
They has always been a pro Palestinian stance in the Labour Party but there is no focus on it at the moment, this is the press .
 
Back