|
|
Post by batman on Feb 12, 2024 12:30:15 GMT
Nick Griffin has endorsed George Galloway. Two cheeks of the same arse, as someone once said and they were quite right too |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,040
|
Post by Sibboleth on Feb 12, 2024 12:32:24 GMT
Surprising little genuine action (as opposed to symbolic action and polite fictions like 'disendorsements') actually can be taken at this precise point, which is at least three quarters of the issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Feb 12, 2024 13:00:58 GMT
I can't get on board with this idea that you just "fall" for a niche conspiracy theory by accident. Can you imagine the same if a candidate endorsed the Great Replacement, shape-shifting lizards, Bill Gates using COVID jabs to make you subscribe to Office 365 etc? Publicly expressing such a thing in a meeting is your choice and your responsibility.
Likewise, why is a man with a record of fighting antisemitism now expressing such dodgy suggestions? Without wishing to engage in hyperbole, history has provided plenty of examples of people who consider antisemitism to be foolish and then indulge in it for political gain.
|
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Feb 12, 2024 13:06:35 GMT
Nick Griffin has endorsed George Galloway. Two cheeks of the same arse, as someone once said Horseshoe theory is possible to disprove and then something like this happens. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 12, 2024 13:06:52 GMT
The problem is that it was unwise, not dodgy. Nobody truly thought Sunak was attacking Brianna Ghey, nor was he attacking trans people. He was attacking Starme,r and Starmer, and the Labour Party more widely, used a murdered school girl as a human shield. That isn't comparable to Ali's conspiracies. Of course he wasn’t attacking an individual murder victim and I don’t think anyone has suggested he did. But he was joking over the difficult challenge that she and her family faced and the fundamental issues that would have affected her future had she lived. It really should be possible to discuss trans issues, which are complicated and challenge simple assumptions, with a degree of care and without partisan labelling. Yes, Labour has found it difficult working through some of this. But trying to make silly jokes about that is mere culture wars tactics, with some very vulnerable people in the battlefield, including this family. The mother being present in Parliament added to the unpleasantness but he was wrong anyway to choose this attack line. It fits the “culture wars” agenda and no doubt we’ll get plenty more. Well, I don't want to endorse Sunak's 'joke', which to my mind failed the first requirement for a joke in that it wasn't at all funny, but are you saying it's unfair or discriminatory or otherwise unacceptable to make mock of the trouble the Labour Party has had with this issue?
Because I've got to raise my hand and plead guilty to finding it hilarious.
This is essentially because the whole topic is perfectly placed to bring out the worst instincts of some (not all) Labour people in terms of identity politics and virtue-signalling.
To me, and please bear in mind that I speak as a probable Labour voter (albeit a reluctant and (I hope) temporary one), these are aspects of the Labour mentality with which I have very little sympathy. So it brings me deep joy when I see practitioners falling out with each other or tying themselves hopelessly in knots as they try to outdo each other - for instance, the sheer absurdity of the positions that some of the more earnest transgender activists feel constrained to adopt, or the sight of strident, angry, patriarchy-denouncing feminists, who always prided themselves on being in the vanguard of sexual progressivism, now finding themselves outflanked by the transgender lobby and excoriated as 'terfs'.
Are you telling me I am wrong to relish the spectacle of the smug and sanctimonious, who have always been so eager to lecture the rest of us about what we should think and how we should live our lives, so rudely hoist by their own petard? Or the convolutions of more sensible Labour people as they try to find a modus vivendi with the party's sillier elements whilst maintaining their dignity and a working relationship with reality?
Well, I'm willing to lend Labour my vote; but if I'm also required to cease to find this sort of thing funny, I'm afraid that's a bridge too far.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Feb 12, 2024 14:07:05 GMT
I can't get on board with this idea that you just "fall" for a niche conspiracy theory by accident. Can you imagine the same if a candidate endorsed the Great Replacement, shape-shifting lizards, Bill Gates using COVID jabs to make you subscribe to Office 365 etc? Publicly expressing such a thing in a meeting is your choice and your responsibility. Likewise, why is a man with a record of fighting antisemitism now expressing such dodgy suggestions? Without wishing to engage in hyperbole, history has provided plenty of examples of people who consider antisemitism to be foolish and then indulge in it for political gain. It's also not a very good defence. I wouldn't vote for an antisemite, but nor would I vote for a gullible nitwit who falls for clearly false Facebook conspiracies about Netanyahu. It's like anti-Zionist Q-anon. |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Feb 12, 2024 14:11:32 GMT
Craig Murray on Galloway:
|
|
Terry Weldon
Lib Dem
Councilor, Waverley BC and Haslemere TC. Lifelong liberal, in S Africa and now UK
Posts: 307 
|
Post by Terry Weldon on Feb 12, 2024 14:33:15 GMT
Some may react TL:DR to what I'm about to say, but I hope you won't. I'm the most prominent (though not the only) Jewish Labour person in this forum and have been awake quite a portion of the night thinking about this situation. I have come to the conclusion that I was not correct in wishing that neither Azhar Ali nor George Galloway might win. This may be dismissed by one or two of you as typical partisan Labour stuff. That would be pretty unfair. I would remind anyone thinking in this way that some of the highest-profile anti-Semites who were in my party can "thank" me, amongst others, for their expulsions, and I am fiercely proud of the role that I, and Socialists Against Antisemitism more widely, played in them. Ken Loach is the best-known of these, but others including Crispin Flintoff & Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi can "thank" me & SAAS too. We also played a major role in the dismissal of David Miller from the University of Bristol, and I am outraged by the verdict in his tribunal. These people *are* anti-Semites, despite what some like Merseymike might say and despite the Jewish heritage of Wimborne-Idrissi. I would in addition remind those who accuse me of partisanship that I felt unable to vote Labour at the last general election. But if I look at the evidence in this particular case, I come to the Scottish verdict of neither "not guilty" or "guilty", but "not proven". I'd like to acknowledge the contributions made here by The Bishop, David Boothroyd, Matt Wilson & Catholic Left. But it was a question that graham asked that has caused me to think. It was a simple one, asking whether Azhar Ali's outburst could be reasonably argued to be a strong disagreement with Netanyahu and the Israeli government, and not one of antisemitism. At first I thought no, it can't. But, where is the evidence that he was motivated by a hatred of, mistrust of, or prejudice against Jews in what he said? I don't think there is incontrovertible evidence of that. For David & Sandy in Scotland, the mere fact that he is a Muslim is enough to convict him. I find that completely wrong & actually objectionable. Of course there is antisemitism within the Muslim population, and of course it is a problem. But there are actually many Muslims who simply do not have negative views of Jews, who do not believe the monstrous antisemitic conspiracy theories, and in many ways see the Jewish community as having in the past had similar experiences to what they now have. Some Muslims actively work with the Jewish community, for example in Afzal Khan's Muslim-Jewish forum in Manchester, and in Bradford when they helped to save Bradford's synagogue. Antisemitism is present amongst many communities, very much including White British Christians, and other ethnic minorities. Being a Muslim does not necessarily equal being antisemitic, far from it. However, it would be absurd to claim that there is not a serious problem in the Muslim community with antisemitism. We just need to get the balance right, and not lapse into generalities which are both inaccurate and unhelpful. To me, some of the worst antisemitism I experience derives from, if I may be permitted to use a stereotype for once, Keffiyeh-wearing White people who are often in my age group or older, though some are younger for sure. Of course some who profess the Islamic faith have physically attacked people because they were (or the attacker thought they were) Jewish, and that's a serious problem. But let's not fall into generalities. My first reaction on hearing what Ali said was of total outrage, and to some extent I still feel outraged. I was reminded of a quote from that Jew-hater extraordinaire, former National Front leader John Tyndall, who said of the Holocaust "Such a toll matters little to the Jew engaged in his struggle for world domination". But when I came to think in greater clarity, the part about world domination is in no way present in what Ali said. There is nothing in his past to suggest that he supports or gives credence to the gross antisemitic myths & conspiracy theories which have been around, in some cases, for hundreds of years, indeed he has been critical of them himself. Was he wrong to say what he did? Absolutely, totally wrong. It is clearly absurd, and very stupid, to claim that Binyamin Netanyahu deliberately connived in or allowed the October 7 outrages to provide a justification for military action in Gaza. Few people can outdo me in the intense dislike I have for Netanyahu. I feel that yes, he HAS by some of his actions made life less safe for Israeli Jews, let alone those of us who live in the diaspora. I care deeply about the security of Israel's Jews, not least because I have relatives living there. Israel is supposed to be a safe haven for the Jewish people and it is not a safe haven at the moment, and he & his government must accept their share of the blame for that (of course, Hamas, and other terrorists who hate Jews as a people, must accept even more). I absolutely have to agree that he does not give a shit about diaspora Jews who do not aspire to live in Israel. If he cared about us, he would not for example be pally with that lousy anti-Semite Viktor Orban (his appalling son Yair is even more pally). But does he genuinely not care about Israeli Jews' safety? Even as an arch-critic of Netanyahu I have to reject that completely. Azhar Ali should absolutely not have said what he did, it was disgraceful and wrong, and I completely respect those who feel unable to campaign for him. Indeed, even if I could conveniently get to Rochdale, which I can't really, I don't think I'd want to campaign for him either. Nevertheless, I cannot see any evidence that tells me "he said this because he has a negative view about Jews in general, or because he mistrusts us as a people". Instead, I see it as stupid, ignorant, way over-the-top and inappropriate criticism of the motives of Netanyahu. David says that he doesn't mean his apology, and he's entitled to think that. I however don't think it's possible to prove, apparently just because he's a Muslim, that he does not mean it when he says he is sorry. I think that this renders him, at best, a very poor Labour candidate. But is there any proof that antisemitic motives were behind it, whether they are Holocaust denial, conspiracy theories, dislike/mistrust of Jews, etc. etc., rather than an inappropriate ascribing of motives to Netanyahu? I cannot see such proof. And don't say I'm naive. I have spent most of the last 5-6 years studying and campaigning against antisemitism in my party and am the co-author of the most detailed listing ever produced of antisemitism in all its recognisable forms. As David Boothroyd & others pointed out, he does have a record of opposition to antisemitism and has shown at least some understanding of what antisemitism is. His record is not perfect but it is largely an honourable one. There is nothing in his record to suggest that there is an identifiable antisemitic motive to his outburst. And it is important to note the response of leading Jewish organisations. Their response, whether they are Labour-aligned or otherwise, has been a measured one, and I don't think we should pretend to know better than them, especially if we're not Jewish. I am honoured to be a friend of a member of the Jewish Leadership Council who is a member of the Labour Party's Advisory Board on Antisemitism (which includes some non-Labour figures). The JLC has refrained from calling for Ali to be disowned, and the response of the BoD has been similar. Although there is a right-wing faction which thinks that the BoD is not anti-Labour enough, neither they nor the JLC are Labour-leaning organisations, but are strictly non-partisan, and so they should be. The Jewish Labour Movement, of which I am a member, has also stopped short of asking the Party to disown Ali, although they will not campaign in Rochdale. I think that the responses of these 3 organisations are the correct ones, and that we should respect them. I would very much like to think that I am fair-minded enough to come to these conclusions irrespective of the identity of Labour's apparent main opposition in Rochdale. If it is right not to disown Ali, which I now believe that it is, it is right whether the main threat came from a pro-Israel Conservative or from the antisemitic goon George Galloway. If this contribution shows one thing, it is that I am never afraid to call an anti-Semite if they are an anti-Semite; but I need conclusive evidence before I say such a thing. In this case, I find the evidence, at present, lacking. So in conclusion, while I think what he said was utterly wrong and reflects extremely badly on him as a potential Labour MP, I do now hope he defeats Galloway and the other candidates on offer in the by-election. He needs now to show by his actions that he has learnt lessons from this and that he realises that he has come dangerously close to a very nasty form of antisemitism, even it cannot be proven that this was his motivation. |
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Feb 12, 2024 14:33:56 GMT
Timex is nothing to be proud of. The Timex workers were their own worst enemy.
|
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Feb 12, 2024 14:34:32 GMT
I can't get on board with this idea that you just "fall" for a niche conspiracy theory by accident. Can you imagine the same if a candidate endorsed the Great Replacement, shape-shifting lizards, Bill Gates using COVID jabs to make you subscribe to Office 365 etc? Publicly expressing such a thing in a meeting is your choice and your responsibility. Likewise, why is a man with a record of fighting antisemitism now expressing such dodgy suggestions? Without wishing to engage in hyperbole, history has provided plenty of examples of people who consider antisemitism to be foolish and then indulge in it for political gain. Can we leave the hon member for Leicestershire NW out of this please  |
|
Terry Weldon
Lib Dem
Councilor, Waverley BC and Haslemere TC. Lifelong liberal, in S Africa and now UK
Posts: 307
|
Post by Terry Weldon on Feb 12, 2024 14:34:47 GMT
Definiteley worth reading. Thoughtful, and clearly reasoned view by one who by background could easily have allowed emotion to cloud judgement.
Thank you - I found it seriously helpful.
|
|
|
|
Post by gibbon on Feb 12, 2024 15:45:12 GMT
As a member of the Jewish community I fully support batman's comments. At the last General Election I had major concerns voting for Corbyn's Labour and in the end supported the candidate for the Women's Equality Party as a protest. The problem is that any criticism of any Israeli Government is considered to be antisemitic by certain elements of the Jewish community. It is not antisemitic to criticise Netanyahu. If it was most Israelis would be classed as antisemitic. The Conservative Party were quite happy to highlight incidents of antisemitism when referring to remarks made by Labour Party members but kept quiet about some remarks made by Conservative members which were similar in tone to some uttered by Labour Party members. Members of other political parties such as the Liberal Democrats and the SNP have been very critical of Israel but have not been branded as antisemitic.
|
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Feb 12, 2024 16:14:52 GMT
As a member of the Jewish community I fully support batman's comments. I had you down as a Gibbon. I am quite disappointed. |
|
r34t
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,191
Member is Online
|
Post by r34t on Feb 12, 2024 16:24:57 GMT
I have shared a platform with Alex Salmond. I didn't think at the time that it implied an endorsement of all his views. Nor that he endorsed mine. I've shared a platform with JRM on a number of occasions, without anyone considering that I was endorsing his views or vice versa. Sharing & supporting are not the same thing & are usually an obvious differentiation. |
|
hengog
Conservative
Posts: 1,436
|
Post by hengog on Feb 12, 2024 17:00:02 GMT
Of course he wasn’t attacking an individual murder victim and I don’t think anyone has suggested he did. But he was joking over the difficult challenge that she and her family faced and the fundamental issues that would have affected her future had she lived. It really should be possible to discuss trans issues, which are complicated and challenge simple assumptions, with a degree of care and without partisan labelling. Yes, Labour has found it difficult working through some of this. But trying to make silly jokes about that is mere culture wars tactics, with some very vulnerable people in the battlefield, including this family. The mother being present in Parliament added to the unpleasantness but he was wrong anyway to choose this attack line. It fits the “culture wars” agenda and no doubt we’ll get plenty more. Well, I don't want to endorse Sunak's 'joke', which to my mind failed the first requirement for a joke in that it wasn't at all funny, but are you saying it's unfair or discriminatory or otherwise unacceptable to make mock of the trouble the Labour Party has had with this issue?
Because I've got to raise my hand and plead guilty to finding it hilarious.
This is essentially because the whole topic is perfectly placed to bring out the worst instincts of some (not all) Labour people in terms of identity politics and virtue-signalling.
To me, and please bear in mind that I speak as a probable Labour voter (albeit a reluctant and (I hope) temporary one), these are aspects of the Labour mentality with which I have very little sympathy. So it brings me deep joy when I see practitioners falling out with each other or tying themselves hopelessly in knots as they try to outdo each other - for instance, the sheer absurdity of the positions that some of the more earnest transgender activists feel constrained to adopt, or the sight of strident, angry, patriarchy-denouncing feminists, who always prided themselves on being in the vanguard of sexual progressivism, now finding themselves outflanked by the transgender lobby and excoriated as 'terfs'.
Are you telling me I am wrong to relish the spectacle of the smug and sanctimonious, who have always been so eager to lecture the rest of us about what we should think and how we should live our lives, so rudely hoist by their own petard? Or the convolutions of more sensible Labour people as they try to find a modus vivendi with the party's sillier elements whilst maintaining their dignity and a working relationship with reality?
Well, I'm willing to lend Labour my vote; but if I'm also required to cease to find this sort of thing funny, I'm afraid that's a bridge too far.
Well put. What we need always to bear in mind though is that the assumption on the liberal left is that anyone who has an alternative view from that of the “progressive “ side concerning the various social issues which form the ground of the so called “culture wars” , and has the temerity to express that view is a “culture warrior” . Whereas they are simply decent people who campaign for, and , when they get the chance implement change for the better, their opponents can only be doing so for grubby political motives . |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 12, 2024 17:07:16 GMT
Timex is nothing to be proud of. The Timex workers were their own worst enemy. The best bit was at the end, when Timex, after protracted industrial unrest, pulled out of Dundee altogether; and the union (can't remember which one it was) called for consumers to stop buying Timex products. With no apparent awareness that Timex's problems had begun because consumers had already done exactly that of their own accord, preferring cheaper and more accurate digital watches instead. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Feb 12, 2024 17:47:38 GMT
I am at the stage where I sort of assume that any Muslim candidate of any party is anti-semitic. Nominate them and you reduce the liklihood of my vote, unless they can prove they're not anti-semitic. It may not be fair but the response to the latest Gaza / Israel conflict has pushed me towards this default position, and I doubt I'm the only one.
|
|
hengog
Conservative
Posts: 1,436
|
Post by hengog on Feb 12, 2024 18:21:49 GMT
I get the impression we’re not far away now from voting broadly following race/ religion now in some places. If one party succeeds in regularly attracting 90% of the votes from one big minority group , and there becomes an expectation or a perception that its representatives will be drawn from that group , it’s hardly surprising if members of other minorities ( or maybe the majority) will look to other parties to represent them.
|
|
andrea
Non-Aligned
Posts: 7,801
|
Post by andrea on Feb 12, 2024 19:01:31 GMT
The contortions of some Labour politicians/commentators/sources/whatever over these two days are quite impressive.
|
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Feb 12, 2024 19:01:38 GMT
Of course he wasn’t attacking an individual murder victim and I don’t think anyone has suggested he did. But he was joking over the difficult challenge that she and her family faced and the fundamental issues that would have affected her future had she lived. It really should be possible to discuss trans issues, which are complicated and challenge simple assumptions, with a degree of care and without partisan labelling. Yes, Labour has found it difficult working through some of this. But trying to make silly jokes about that is mere culture wars tactics, with some very vulnerable people in the battlefield, including this family. The mother being present in Parliament added to the unpleasantness but he was wrong anyway to choose this attack line. It fits the “culture wars” agenda and no doubt we’ll get plenty more. Well, I don't want to endorse Sunak's 'joke', which to my mind failed the first requirement for a joke in that it wasn't at all funny, but are you saying it's unfair or discriminatory or otherwise unacceptable to make mock of the trouble the Labour Party has had with this issue?
Because I've got to raise my hand and plead guilty to finding it hilarious.
This is essentially because the whole topic is perfectly placed to bring out the worst instincts of some (not all) Labour people in terms of identity politics and virtue-signalling.
To me, and please bear in mind that I speak as a probable Labour voter (albeit a reluctant and (I hope) temporary one), these are aspects of the Labour mentality with which I have very little sympathy. So it brings me deep joy when I see practitioners falling out with each other or tying themselves hopelessly in knots as they try to outdo each other - for instance, the sheer absurdity of the positions that some of the more earnest transgender activists feel constrained to adopt, or the sight of strident, angry, patriarchy-denouncing feminists, who always prided themselves on being in the vanguard of sexual progressivism, now finding themselves outflanked by the transgender lobby and excoriated as 'terfs'.
Are you telling me I am wrong to relish the spectacle of the smug and sanctimonious, who have always been so eager to lecture the rest of us about what we should think and how we should live our lives, so rudely hoist by their own petard? Or the convolutions of more sensible Labour people as they try to find a modus vivendi with the party's sillier elements whilst maintaining their dignity and a working relationship with reality?
Well, I'm willing to lend Labour my vote; but if I'm also required to cease to find this sort of thing funny, I'm afraid that's a bridge too far.
Well it depends what amuses you. I watch a lot of “comedy” with a pretty straight face. I don’t expect to persuade you but here goes. The number of trans people is tiny. Of course you may be among those who think that trans either doesn’t exist or is largely a con but, from my experience there are people who struggle with the sex they are born with. They are currently, sadly, disproportionate users of mental health services and are also victims of abuse, sometimes violent. Suicide is not uncommon. If you accept, and you may not, that there is a need for better support then there are a number of legal issues to tackle with some other groups having legitimate opinions on what is done. Brianna’s family would have been through some of the issues around this. Defining sensible law and the services based on those laws requires debate, tolerant, open-minded discussion but focus on framing potentially better outcomes for those on this journey while safeguarding other rights where conflict arises. Difficult. And with some anger and anxiety as a chorus, and with the normal electoral reminder that this is a tiny minority on which plenty of electoral capital is spent. The easy approach is to adopt simplistic slogans - for example “defining a woman” - and Sunak followed that path. That may well appeal to you. And for the vast majority that seems fine. But concern for minorities is a test of democracy. There aren’t many votes in Labour’s painful debate on this but the conclusion seems reasonable. |
|
