BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 16 - 03:37 AM

The name has been altered slightly, but it is the same body.
Whatever that EU body is now called, the EUMC working definition of anti-semitism is still there on an EU web page with no disclaimers, and the slightly renamed EUMC is still working against anti-semitism, so all your claims are shown to be false as usual.

Pfr, I did think that Labour's antisemitism had been revealed from within the party.
Sorry.
It is even more shocking that Labour ignored "appalling anti-semitic abuse" and it was left to outsiders to reveal it.
Would you have preferred that it remained hidden?

I do recall that Khan accused Corbyn of refusing to call out antisemitism.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 16 - 02:07 PM

Nowhere does it say that the current projects you refer to are EUMC projects. You are going on to the website of a completely different organisation. Your EUMC does not exist, Keith. Now of course we all know why you're doing this. You've been caught out, you've made a complete fool of yourself and your foolish pride refuses to let you back down. I invite any of your allies to counteract anything I've said. There is no EUMC any more, it was replaced by the FRA, the guidelines you keep wittering on about are long-defunct and are accepted by no official EU body. Simple, checkable, wiki or anywhere else. All YOU can do is direct us to a setup that is not the EUMC (how could it be!), and even there there is no support for those guidelines. Now go off and make an honest man of yourself, Keith. You are being completely ridiculous. You are flailing, failing and in danger of derailing. Disgusting, busting, unworthy of trusting. Sad, bad and possibly barking mad. It's good fun though, innit.

Incidentally, the EUMC was (WAS, Keith) the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. It was not the body that was the forerunner of the body you refer to in your link. The successor, and the only successor, was the FRA. All checkable, all true. But don't let that stop you digging, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 16 - 12:08 PM

Steve, your "report" was from Wiki, not the EU, and it is demonstrably wrong.

" In November 2013 the definition was removed from the organisation's website in 'a clear-out of non-official documents'"

It is still there in all its original glory. Remember?

You also are demonstrably wrong again Steve,

Yes, there is an EUMC. But it's the European Union Military Committee.

The EUMC is the European Parliament Working Group on Anti-Semitism, and here is a link to some of its CURRENT projects.
http://www.antisem.eu/projects/

And here is a link to its anti-semitism criteria, which you claim is not there!

"EUMC WORKING DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM
WORKING DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM
The purpose of this document is to provide a practical guide for identifying incidents, collecting data, and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with antisemitism."
http://www.antisem.eu/projects/eumc-working-definition-of-antisemitism/

Note, my links are all to EU pages, not Wiki!

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 25 May 16 - 08:58 AM

"Pfr,

.. because no other party was 'victim' of a concerted intensive strategic attack of malicious accusations in the run up to the elections...

It all came from within Labour."


Oh no it didn't..

Oh yes it did..

Oh no it didn't..

Oh yes it did..

Oh no it didn't..

Oh yes it did.... etc.. etc.. ad infinitum.....

Oh dear boys and girls.. have we now really descended to this pantomime level of debate....?????


Apparently so... 🙄



Keith - this is what the Guardian had to say about the notorious noxious self promoting 'personality' who kicked off the Naz Shah 'scandal'

"Right-wing blogger Paul Staines is a man with an instinct for retribution and vendetta. For almost ten years he has been claiming scalps in Westminster. So who's next?"

Paul De Laire Staines aka Guido Fawkes is a serial destroyer of political reputations.. he does it for financial gain and vainglory.

He is most definitely not 'within the Labour Party'

The right wing media that gleefully ran with the Naz Shan scandal story, are most definitely not owned or run from 'within the Labour Party'

The Israeli regime supporters and propagandists who jumped on the bandwagon in order use this well timed excuse to punish Corbyn and his allies
are mostly not 'within the Labour Party'...

Though obviously at this stage in the attack, the Israeli Regime propaganda network might count on some Jewish Labour party members conforming to peer pressure
to voice their concerns from 'within the Labour Party'..


Then after all this.. [and I'll let you have this one Keith]
it's the turn of the blairites, bitterites, malignant vengeful right wing factions 'within the Labour Party'
to seize their opportunity to have a kick at Corbyn's head while they think he is pinned down defenseless on the ground...


Keith - but of course you will ignore all that as it does't fit your biased preconceptions...??? 😣

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 16 - 07:21 AM

Bad English. Grr.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 16 - 07:17 AM

It isn't difficult to see why a "wider definition of antisemitism" would be not just a lie (because true antisemitism is to do with hating Jews BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWS, nothing else) but also because it would prevent the very measured criticism of Israeli regimes of the kind we read in Jim's link.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 16 - 06:25 AM

This from this morning's Irish Times
Jim Carroll

THE PARALLELS I SEE BETWEEN ISRAEL AND 1930's GERMANY
Uvi Avnery
Opinion
"The racist Bills being enacted by the Knesset are very similar to laws adopted in the early days of the Nazi regime"

"Please don't write about Ya'ir Golan!' a friend begged me. "Anything a leftist like you writes will only harm him." So I abstained for some weeks. But I cannot keep quiet any longer.
Gen Ya'ir Golan, deputy chief of staff of the Israeli army, made a speech on Holocaust Memorial Day. Wearing his uniform, he read a prepared, well-consid- ered text that triggered an uproar which has not yet died down.
Dozens of articles have been published in its wake, some condemning him, some lauding him. It seems that nobody could stay indifferent.
The main sentence was: "If there is something that frightens me about the memories of the Holocaust, it is the knowledge of the awful processes which happened in Europe in general, and in Germany in particular, 70,80,90years ago, and finding traces of them here in our midst, today, in 2016."
All hell broke loose. Traces of Nazism in Israel? A resemblance between what the Nazis did to us with what we are doing to the Palestinians?
Ninety years ago was 1926, one of the lastyears of the German republic. Eighty years ago was 1936, three years after the Nazis came to power. Seventy years ago was 1946, on the morrow of Adolf Hitler's suicide and the end of the Nazi Reich.

Moral commandment
I feel compelled to write about the general's speech after all, because I was there.
As a child I was an eyewitness to the last years of the Weimar Republic (so-called because its constitution was shaped in Weimar, the town of Goethe and Schiller). As a politically alert boy I witnessed the Nazi Machtergreifung ("taking power") and the first six months of Nazi rule.
I know what Golan was speaking about. Though we belong to two different generations, we share the same background, Both our families come from small towns in western Germany. His father and I must have had a lot in common.
There is a strict moral commandment in Israel: nothing can be compared to the Holocaust. The Holocaust is unique. It happened to us, the Jews, because we are unique. (Religious Jews would add: "Because God has chosen us.")
I have broken this commandment. Just before Golan was born, I published (in Hebrew) a book called The Swastika, in which I recounted my childhood memories and tried to draw conclusions from them. It was on the eve of the Eichmann
trial, and I was shocked by the lack of knowledge about the Nazi era among young Israelis.
My book did not deal with the Holocaust, which took place when I was already living in Palestine, but with a question which troubled me throughout the years and which still does even today: how could it happen that Germany, perhaps the most cultured nation on Earth at the time, the homeland of Goethe, Beethoven and Kant, could democratically elect a raving psychopath such as Adolf Hitler as its leader?
The last chapter of the book was entitled It Can Happen Here!The title was drawn from a book by American novelist Sinclair Lewis, called ironically It Can't Happen Here, in which he described a Nazi takeover of the United States.
In this chapter I discussed the possibili- . ty of a Jewish Nazi-like party coming to power in Israel. My conclusion was that a Nazi party can come to power in any country on Earth, if the conditions are right. Yes, in Israel, too.
The book was largely ignored by the Israeli public, which at the time was overwhelmed by the storm of emotions evoked by the terrible disclosures of the Eichmann trial.
Now along comes Golan, an esteemed professional soldier, and says the same thing. And not as an improvised remark, but on an official occasion, wearing his general's uniform, reading from a prepared, well thought-out text.
The storm broke out and has yet to pass.

Inconvenient truths
Israelis have a self-protective habit: when confronted with inconvenient truths, they evade its essence and deal with a secondary, unimportant aspect. Of all the dozens and dozens of reactions in the written press, on TV and on political platforms, almost none confronted the general's painful contention.
No, the furious debate that broke out concerns the following questions: Is a high-ranking army officer allowed to voice an opinion about matters that concern the civilian establishment? And do so in army uniform? On an official occasion?
Should an army officer keep quiet about his political convictions? Or voice them only in closed sessions - or "relevant forums", as a furious Binyamin Netanyahu phrased it?
Golan enjoys a very high degree of respect in the army. As deputy chief of staff he was until now almost certainly a candidate for chief of staff, when the incumbent leaves the office after the customary four years.
The fulfilment of this dream, which is shared by every general staff officer, is now very remote. In practice, Golan has sacrificed his further advancement in order to utter his warning and give it the widest possible resonance.
One can only respect such courage. I don't believe I have ever met Golan and I don't know his political views. But I do admire his act.
Somehow I recall an article published by the British magazine Punch before the first World War, when a group of junior army officers issued a statement opposing the government's policy in Ireland. The magazine said that while disapproving of the opinion expressed by the mutinous officers, it took pride in the fact that such youthful officers were ready to sacrifice their careers for their convictions.
The Nazi march to power started in 1929, when a terrible worldwide economic crisis hit Germany. A tiny, ridiculous far-right party suddenly became a political force to be reckoned with.
From there it took it four years to become the largest party in the country and to take over power (though it still needed a coalition).

Frightening similarity
I was there when it happened, a boy in a family in which politics became the main topic at the dinner table. I saw how the republic broke down, gradually, slowly, step by step. I saw our family friends hoisting the swastika flag.
I saw my high-school teacher raising his arm when entering the class and saying, "Heil Hitler" for the first time (and then reassuring me in private that nothing had changed).
I was the only Jew in the entire gymnasi¬um (high school.) When the hundreds of boys - all taller than I was - raised their arms to sing the Nazi anthem and I did not, they threatened to break my bones if it happened again. A few days later we left Germany for good.
Golan was accused of comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. Nothing of the sort. A careful reading of his text shows that he compared developments in Israel to the events that led to the disintegration of the Weimar Republic. And that is a valid comparison.
Things happening in Israel, especially since the last election, bear a frightening similarity to those events. True, the process is quite different. German fascism arose from the humiliation of surrender in
the first World War, the occupation of the Ruhr by France and Belgium from 1923-25, the terrible economic crisis of 1929 and the misery of millions of unem¬ployed.
Israel is victorious in its frequent military actions, we live comfortable lives. The dangers threatening us are of a quite different nature. They stem from our victories, not from our defeats.
Indeed, the differences between Israel today and Germany then are far greater than the similarities. But those similarities do exist, and the general was right to point them out.
The discrimination against the Palestin¬ians in practically all spheres of life can be compared to the treatment of the Jews in the first phase of Nazi Germany. (The oppression of the Palestinians in the occupied territories resembles more the treatment of the Czechs in the "protector¬ate" after the Munich betrayal.)
The rain of racist Bills in the Knesset, those already adopted and those in the works, strongly resembles the laws adopted by the Reichstag in the early days of the Nazi regime. Some rabbis call for a
boycott of Arab shops. Like then. The call "Death to the Arabs" ("Judah verrecke"?) is regularly heard at soccer matches.
A member of parliament has called for the separation between Jewish and Arab newborns in hospital. A chief rabbi has declared that Goyim (non-Jews) were created by God to serve the Jews.
Our ministers for education and culture are busy subduing the schools, theatre and arts to the extreme rightist line, something known in German as Gleichschaltung. The supreme court, the pride of Israel, is being relentlessly attacked by the minister of justice. The Gaza Strip is a huge ghetto.
Of course, no one in their right mind would even remotely compare Netanyahu to Hitler, but there are political parties here which do emit a strong fascist smell. The political riffraff peopling the present Netanyahu government could easily have found their place in the first Nazi govern¬ment.
One of the main slogans of our present government is to replace the "old elite", considered too liberal, with a new one.
One of the main Nazi slogans was to replace "das System".

Army rule
By the way, when the Nazis came to power, almost all high-ranking officers of the German army were staunch anti-Nazis. They were even considering a putsch against Hitler. Their political leader was summarily executed a year later, when Hitler liquidated his opponents in his own party.
We are told that Golan is now protected by a personal bodyguard, something that has never happened to a general in the annals of Israel.
The general did not mention the occupation and the settlements, which are under army rule. However, he did mention the episode which occurred shortly before he gave this speech and which is still shaking Israel now: in occupied Hebron, under army rule, a soldier saw a seriously wounded Palestinian lying helplessly on the ground, approached him and killed him with a shot to the head.
The victim had tried to attack some soldiers with a knife, but did not constitute a threat to anyone any more. This was a clear contravention of army standing orders, and the soldier has been hauled before a court martial.
A cry went up around the country: the soldier is a hero! He should be decorated! Netanyahu called his father to assure him of his support.
Avigdor Lieberman entered the crowded courtroom in order to express his solidarity with the soldier. A few days later Netanyahu appointed Lieberman as minister for defence, the second most important office in Israel.
Before that, Golan received robust support from minister for defence Moshe Ya'alon and chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot. Probably this was the immediate reason for the kicking out of Ya'alon and the appointment of Lieberman in his place. It resembled a putsch.
It seems that Golan is not only a coura¬geous officer, but a prophet too. The inclusion of Lieberman's party in the government coalition confirms Golan's blackest fears. This is another fatal blow to the Israeli democracy.
Am I condemned to witness the same process for the second time in my life?

"The discrimination against the Palestinians in practically all spheres of life can be compared to the treatment of the Jews in the first phase of Nazi Germany"

Uri Avnery is a journalist and commentator

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 16 - 06:19 AM

Well, Keith, what can I say.

Yes, there is an EUMC. But it's the European Union Military Committee. Not what you think, Keith. Nothing to do with this topic at all. The EUMC you're talking about was superseded in 2007 by the FRA, and it wasn't just a name-change either. To save anyone who has yet to slit their own throat as a result of reading this thread from having to look all over the place, here are the relevant bits gleaned from wiki. No-one says you have to trust wiki, of course. Over to you if you don't. Here goes.

The FRA was established in 2007 as the successor to the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), which was also based in Vienna. The EUMC's mandate was narrower than that of the FRA, as it was restricted to issues of racism and xenophobia....

...Publications of the EUMC

EUMC published reports are available from the website here of the FRA, the EUMC successor agency. A selection is given below.

Report: Working Definition of Antisemitism

In 2005, the EUMC published a working definition of antisemitism, whose stated purpose was to "provide a guide for identifying incidents, collecting data and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with antisemitism." In November 2013 the definition was removed from the organisation's website in 'a clear-out of non-official documents'. A spokesperson stated that the document had never been viewed as a valid definition and that "We are not aware of any official definition".....

....The Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism: Government Response 29 March 2007 noted that "from the EUMC's evidence to the Committee", the "definition is in fact a work in progress and has not been recommended to states for adoption."

In case Keith's lost his reading specs, I've put some bits in bold. I know that you can all manage without that, except Keith, so please don't feel insulted.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 16 - 04:08 AM

"If you search for the EU position on anti-semetism,"
Why on earth should anybody wish to do such a thing - do people need to "search" for definitions of words (Semitism by the way, perhaps you need to look up the spelling and you are now consistently spelling it incorrectly)
We know what Antisemitism is, some of us have been opposing it all our lives.
Rule books are only for those who wich to manipulate the subject for their own devices, as Israel has been doing.
Antisemitism is "discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews."discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews" - rule-books are for fine tuning.
The increasingly extremist right-wing Israeli regime (as described by many Israelis, including leading figures in the government and the army, not to mention Holocaust survivors and their decedents) is now tinkering with the term in order to justify its extremist behaviour.
It has shown contempt for the views of the Jewish people as a whole by describing those who disagree with its policies as "Self-hating Jews".
That ought to be indicative to anybody with half a brain that there is something rotten in the State of Israel.
How dare these people use the Jews to cover up their crimes?
The greatest threat to the Jewish people in the world today is the Israeli regime - not only has it destroyed the dream of those who survived the Holocaust and the dream of all persecuted Jews throughout history, but it is now painting a target on every Jew in the world marking them as being responsible for Sabra-Shatila, Gaza.... and every other atrocity that Israel has put its name to
It is spending many millions on its propaganda campaign and it very much a part of what is happening in the British Labour Party.
Of cours Labour has its share of racists and Antisemites, as has every Political Party - wartime Antisemitic activity among the Conservative of Britain was little more than unpunished treason.
You are not supporting, or even concerned with The Jews - all your efforts go into support for Israel - and that is Antisemitic, something you have accused others of, but are guilty of yourself, along with all the trolls who have posted to these threads
How about puting in some effort for the threat to The Jewish People rather than making yourself part of that threat

Israeli propaganda campaign

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 16 - 03:22 AM

Pfr,

.. because no other party was 'victim' of a concerted intensive strategic attack of malicious accusations in the run up to the elections...

It all came from within Labour.

steve,

Keith, you are becoming a laughing stock, a farce on legs. Everything I've told you about the document is true. It has no official standing in the EU or in any member states and has been long-discarded even by the body that drafted it (and draft-only was what it ever was).

Oh dear Steve. Everything you say is shite.
If you search for the EU position on anti-semetism, you are directed the the EUMC criteria exactly as they always have been since 2005.
There is no disclaimer on the page to say it is no longer recognised, even by a single EU state.

There is nothing on any of the current EUMC pages to suggest any such thing.
(Note "current" Steve. Your claim that it no longer exists was more shite)

There is nothing on any FRA page to suggest any such thing.

There is nothing on any EU page to suggest that the displayed criteria are not recognised, because your claims are all shite Steve.

Please either produce an EU statement to support your assertions, or stop insulting me for putting the actual facts from the EU website.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 May 16 - 02:21 PM

"Keith, you are becoming a laughing stock, a farce on legs"

Sorry to correct you Steve, but I think you have used the wrong tense.

I think you should have used the past tense.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 16 - 01:46 PM

"However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."

That's it, Jim. The proviso in this sentence is completely unacceptable. In order to criticise Israel (or, better, the regime in Israel) similarly to any other country, they would have to be doing the same things wrong as any other country. So not too many other countries, for example, clear people from a different ethnic group from the best bits of land to make way for themselves. We can't say anything about that then unless we catch someone else doing it as well and criticise them just as much. That's all right then. Damned fine "guidelines," eh? What a pity the EU ditched 'em! Not fair!

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 24 May 16 - 12:08 PM

Keith would seem to be a great proponent of a simple dirty political methodology I learned about on my degree 30 odd years ago...

Political persuasion is not so much about being right,
as about convincingly appearing to be right in the eyes of a ill informed gullible public;
... even when you know you are blatantly lying ....

It's all about assertive deceptive power grabbing.. ends justify the means... eh...?????? 😠

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 16 - 11:51 AM

"The EUMC working definition. "
"Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel."
"However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 16 - 11:39 AM

Keith, you are becoming a laughing stock, a farce on legs. Everything I've told you about the document is true. It has no official standing in the EU or in any member states and has been long-discarded even by the body that drafted it (and draft-only was what it ever was). Just because it still exists in selected locations online doesn't prove a thing. Even the Times Of Israel knows it was ditched and bemoaned the fact, years ago. Go on, look it up. Now you may be hoping against hope that no-one will be reading this any more. But if on the off-chance anyone still is, in two minutes flat of researching they will find that everything you've said about it is wrong and everything I've said about it is right. That does not make me clever and you not. That makes me honest and you lamentably devious, at this point merely trying to save your skin. Read my lips, Keith. The document has been discarded and can't be claimed to be the official EU policy, and it never was. It can be casually adopted by anyone who wants it and who it suits. It ill-behoves them, of course, to do so without informing the readers that the document is no longer recognised, even as a work in progress, by the EU. It's out of the genie's lamp. But official EU stuff it is not. You see, Keith, when a thing like this happens it merely confirms to everyone else here that you can never be trusted to give us anything straight. It wouldn't be half so bad had it been the first time I've caught you out. Tsk, Keith. Tsk.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 24 May 16 - 11:38 AM

.. because no other party was 'victim' of a concerted intensive strategic attack of malicious accusations in the run up to the elections... 😫

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 16 - 11:24 AM


So now let's see similar examples of Tory and UKIP positive declarations of intent.....?????

No other party has had to confront "recent cases of anti-semitic abuse."
All parties, like Labour, claim to be anti-racist.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 16 - 11:20 AM

Steve,
There is no FRA or EU definition of antisemitism in force now, and there has never been anything like an official one sanctioned by the EU, any official EU body or by the member states.

Yes there is.
The EUMC working definition.
http://www.antisem.eu/projects/eumc-working-definition-of-antisemitism/

Pfr,
There are racist arseholes in all groups of people, every political party,

Yes there are, but this is "recent cases of anti-Semitic abuse" which has "appalled" the NEC.
That is what Steve has denied.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 24 May 16 - 11:19 AM

Keith - "The NEC are appalled by recent cases of anti-Semitic abuse. Anti-Semitism has no place in the Labour Party and is contrary to everything we stand for."
http://labourlist.org/2016/05/alice-perrys-nec-report-corbyn-fighting-prejudice-and-listening-to-voters-online/"

ok.. fair enough.. and so Corbyn should be this seriously 'proactive' for all sorts of reasons..

After all, Labour is at heart a 'progressive' party.

So now let's see similar examples of Tory and UKIP positive declarations of intent.....????? 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 16 - 11:10 AM

Pfr,

There are racist arseholes in all groups of people, every political party,

That is true, but we are talking about "recent cases of anti-seitic abuse" that has "appalled" the NEC.

Steve,
The EUMC document has never been adopted officially by EU states as an official EU document

Yes it has. It has been on the EU site for 11 years as the criteria for recognising anti-semitism. It still is!

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 24 May 16 - 09:52 AM

Trouble is I'm so blinded by a lifetime's drinking the stuff I can barely see what I'm typing...

but that won't stop me focusing on antiscrumpsemenhatricks where ever they may hide in the Labour movement..

no matter how soft or squishy or runny that movement may be... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 16 - 09:33 AM

" antiscrumpyimetics"

Are you sure you don't mean antiscrumpyemetics? Drugs that stop you throwing up after drinking too much scrumpy? Gotta be so careful with spellings these days....

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 16 - 09:29 AM

They're even older than that, Jim, and they were never anything other than an unofficial work in progress, quietly got rid of in 2013, never, ever an official EU policy document. All over the internet it is, but Keith is sitting over his keyboard, red-faced and refusing to look. Of course a number of groups have pounced on them. What would you expect when they contain that suitably broadened definition that tries to stem criticism of Israel? But those groups do not include the EU, EU states or even the people who drew them up in the first place. EU states can't adopt a bunch of guidelines that are not EU policy, then claim to be following EU policy. They are defunct, deaded, released from their mortal coil, ceased to be, gone to join the choir invisible, had the final curtain rung down on them. They are ex-guidelines.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 May 16 - 09:28 AM

I am only too aware of Anti-Lancastrarianism in Yorkshire (and elsewhere). Having lived here in Yorkshire for 34 years I have been subject to almost constant daily abuse due to my Lancastrianism. It ought not to be allowed. I would approach my MP but the bastard is a Yorkshireman .............. and a conservative.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 24 May 16 - 09:23 AM

"Yes I did say Labour club.. Keith go get 'em...!!!!!"


Grrrrr.... bloody tiny Preview tick box..... 😠

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 24 May 16 - 09:19 AM

I've had enough... as a proud Scrumpyshire man I am sick of antiscrumpyimetic prejudice riddled throughout society;
and lack of representation of Scrumpyshire voices and faces on Tv and all other forms of media.

I am in the process of writing a directive defining antiscrumpyimeticism to my own criteria and satisfaction.

Now no one else in the world will be likely to ever know about it or read it,
but it doesn't matter because I do, and will be actively on the lookout for any antiscrumpyimetics contravening it.

You lot beware, anyone I catch out will be reported to Keith so he can take appropriate action chasing you all up.....

I'll alert him first to my Local Labour club which now refuses to stock and serve barrels of local rough farmhouse cider..

Yes I did say club.. Keith go get 'em...!!!!! 😈

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 16 - 09:07 AM

"and the only criteria for antisemitism are those produced by EUMC,"
Utter bloody nonsense
Antisemitism is one of the world's oldest form of prejudices.
The idea that we need a 9 year old set of rules to define it it is a trip to La-La Land.
Blame Jews as a people, for anything, as Israel has, is Antisemitic.
Your argument t appears to be that Israel should be the arbiters of Antisemitism - a bit difficult that, given the circumstances, especially as the increasingly right wing regime there is writing off all opponents to its policies - including Israeli Jews, as Antisemitic.
Israel is largely responsible for the rise of Antisemitism in the world today - haven't we just had a very close-run lucky escape in Austria (a serial and historical Jew-hating country)?
When will you people accept that it is arguments like yours that is putting the Jewish population at risk?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 16 - 09:01 AM

Lots of people have come up with criteria for antisemitism. Show me the place on the "EU wbsite" where the definition sits "unchallenged". The EUMC document has never been adopted officially by EU states as an official EU document because not only has it never been one but has now been rejected. These are the facts, Keith. Immutable. INCONTROVERTIBLE. You are making a complete idiot of yourself and you compound the error every single time you refuse to give in to reality. Are we surprised? I think not.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 24 May 16 - 08:46 AM

.. and if you are further insisting on narrowing racism down to only spotlighting antisemitism within the Labour Party...?????? 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 24 May 16 - 08:35 AM

Keith - .. and yet again we have to remind you that no one on this thread has denied there may be racists in the Labour party.

There are racist arseholes in all groups of people, every political party, every folk club, every pub and bingo hall up and down the nation..


Line up 100 random people and the chances are you will find a few racists.

Though how many are full on raging bone head white supremacists, or just ordinary folk who occasionally just unintentionally use the wrong words
because they are unaware of the current fads in elitist academic think tank definition dictates...

who's to judge.... You...???


Same goes if you insist on narrowing racism down to just spotlighting antisemitism...... 😣

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 16 - 07:39 AM

The EUMC is still active, and the only criteria for antisemitism are those produced by EUMC, and they are current on the EU website unchallenged.
They are adopted by all EU states. That is the point of them.

Returning to your denial of anti-semitism within Labour, please note that it is not me, or the right wing press, or the Israel lobby that is "appalled by recent cases of anti-Semitic abuse."

It is Labour's own National Executive Committee.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 16 - 07:14 AM

The EUMC was superseded by the FRA years ago and the remit was not the same. Google, Keith, Google.

You claimed that all 28 states endorsed the working definition. An outrageous claim that you can't confirm. Now you're trying to get me to prove a negative. Why don't you tell me that a ten-legged green man made out of jelly appeared at your bedside last night, then ask me to prove he didn't? You've made a complete clot of yourself over this and you're still wriggling. Now you're trying to cover up by resorting to accusing me of going off-topic, which you yourself have been doing with abandon. There is no FRA or EU definition of antisemitism in force now, and there has never been anything like an official one sanctioned by the EU, any official EU body or by the member states.

You've been caught out. But feel free to carry on acting the clown. It could be quite entertaining to those of a certain masochistc mindset.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 16 - 03:36 AM

Steve,
1. The EUMC has not existed for the last nine years.

Not true Steve. It is still active.
See here some of its current projects.
http://www.antisem.eu/projects/

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 16 - 03:16 AM

They were never more than a work in progress, never adopted by the EU, never ratified by any EU state,

They were.
Show me anything from the EU that says they were not and are not.

Meanwhile, this thread is about problems within Labour.

"Alice Perry's NEC report: Corbyn, fighting prejudice and listening to voters online
23RD MAY, 2016 3:22 PM"

"The NEC are appalled by recent cases of anti-Semitic abuse. Anti-Semitism has no place in the Labour Party and is contrary to everything we stand for."
http://labourlist.org/2016/05/alice-perrys-nec-report-corbyn-fighting-prejudice-and-listening-to-voters-online/

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 16 - 03:14 PM

". or we could just forget about any disputed long winded obscure defining guidelines
and simply rely on our own experience, knowledge, and reasoning"
Seems fair enough to me as Israel has more-or-less hijacked the definition and those who go along with them - - well, go along with them, as can be seen here.
those defending Israel
Israel has moved so far to the right that even senior ministers and Generals are becoming alarmed at what's happened.
I would hesitate to compare what is happening now, but as Israel has made all definitions unusable - why not?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 16 - 11:51 AM

It isn't even disputed, pfr. Except by Keith. As the yanks would say, go figure. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 16 - 11:49 AM

For Christ's sake, Keith, they were never "in force" in the first place. There is no "no longer" about it. They were never more than a work in progress, never adopted by the EU, never ratified by any EU state, adopted only by groups who wanted to suppress criticism of Israel. This is all over the internet and you can google as well as I can. You are making a complete fool of yourself by clinging on to this, and you know it, trying to cover up for your ineptitude typified by your flogging this very dead horse. As for groups adopting it, well you can adopt anything you like, but that does not make the document any more official. All that does is say that here we are, this piece of paper reflects our opinion. Trying to give yourself a bit more credence by falsely claiming that you're adhering to an official EU document is just downright dishonest. Not an attribute that seems to trouble you much, evidently.

From wiki.

In 2005, the EUMC published a working definition of antisemitism, whose stated purpose was to "provide a guide for identifying incidents, collecting data and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with antisemitism." In November 2013 the definition was removed from the organisation's website in 'a clear-out of non-official documents'. A spokesperson stated that the document had never been viewed as a valid definition and that "We are not aware of any official definition".

The spokesperson was from the FRA, the EU body that superseded the EUMC nine years ago. Read and learn, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 May 16 - 11:37 AM

.. or we could just forget about any disputed long winded obscure defining guidelines
and simply rely on our own experience, knowledge, and reasoning
to judge what is acceptable language and behaviour in most everyday social communications and interactions...

After all, I thought conservative right wingers were very fond of a common sense approach
rather than doctrinaire ideological EU dictates.....????? 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 May 16 - 11:25 AM

Because of concerns that certain statements therein could be construed as attempts to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel, that's why.

So not relevant to Richard's breach of the criteria.

Three years ago there was a flurry of uncorroborated reports that the criteria were being dropped.
Today there is no evidence that it ever happened.
if you search for EU antisemetism criteria, you are directed to the original EUMC criteria on an EU page.
There is nothing on any EU page to suggest that they are no longer in force, and as you have been shown, they have been adopted by numerous organisations and states beyond the EU.

If they are no longer recognised, please direct us to an EU body that says so.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 May 16 - 07:32 AM

I note also that the London Declaration and the Ottawa Protocol both endorse this document that its own originators have now dismissed out of hand:

2010 London Declaration:

"Governments must expand the use of the EUMC 'Working Definition of antisemitism' to inform policy of national and international organisations and as a basis for training material for use by Criminal Justice Agencies"

Ottawa Protocol (among other references):

"Universities should use the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism as a basis for education, training and orientation."

Well I wonder whether either of these organisations has reconvened in the light of the abandoning of the document they wanted to lean on so heavily. Actually, had I been of suspicious mind I could even have detected sinister undertones in those two quotes.

Do you know why the document is no longer accepted, Keith? Because of concerns that certain statements therein could be construed as attempts to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel, that's why. And that's why, contrary to your claim, it is not universally accepted. There is much good stuff in there but the baby had to be thrown out with the bathwater, which had an unpleasant stench about it.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 May 16 - 06:17 AM

1. The EUMC has not existed for the last nine years. It was superseded by the FRA.

2. The document on antisemitism was NEVER endorsed by the EU.

3. The document was NEVER recommended for endorsement to member states.

4. It is UNTRUE to state, as you did, that all 28 member states endorsed the document. They did not.

5. The document is defunct. It was set aside, OFFICIALLY, in 2013.

6. If the FRA say they have not adopted it, they have not adopted it. It does not become "adopted" just because they haven't adopted an alternative.

7. Are you really trying to tell us that this set of criteria that are "in use" (which they are not, even though certain organisations may have latched on to them) are the only definition around of antisemitism? Why, you'd think that no-one down the millennia had ever brought up the matter and tried to define it. The truth of the matter is, Keith, that the definition of antisemitism is in dispute and always has been. Pro-Israel factions do not get to have the final say. They are entitled to their input just the same as any other interested parties, including people who may wish to legitimately criticise the Israeli regime. And it is not antisemitic to say that.

The thing is, Keith, you've been dribbling out this false information to us for days, taking us for fools. Not only that, you've used an officially defunct document to brand Richard Bridge antisemitic. You've been caught out once again. Busted, can't be trusted.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 May 16 - 04:20 AM

The criteria are still on the EUMC website.
FRA may say they have not adopted it, but they have produced no alternative definitions.

The EUMC criteria are the only ones in use and if you read my earlier post, and Bobad's, you will see that acceptance of them is universal.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 03:51 AM

YISRAEL BEITEINU
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 03:46 AM

The plot appears to be thickening back at the ranch, where the Israeli leadership appears to be turning in on itself - first a senior Army officer, now a leading Minister - all "self-hating Jews", presumably.
Jim Carroll

ISRAELI MINISTER WARNS OF INSIDE 'EXTREMISTS'
Respected moderate Ya'alon quits Likud party after Netanyahu plan to replace him
Mark Weiss   in Jerusalem .

A day after being informed he will be replaced as defence minister, Moshe Ya'alon has resigned and quit the Knesset parliament, warning that Israel has been taken over by "dangerous and extremist elements".
Widely respected as a con¬scientious and responsible minister and a moderate in prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu's ruling Likud party, Mr Ya'alon was informed he was being replaced by Avigdor Lieberman, under a deal to bring Mr Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party into power.
; Speaking yesterday, Mr Ya'alon announced he was taking a time-out from politics because he had lost faith in Mr Netanyahu, but plans to return to public life in the future.
"Unfortunately, both Israel and Likud have been taken over by dangerous extremists, undercutting our home and threatening those in it.

'Depths of the crisis'
"This is not the Likud party I joined, and the vast majority of Likud voters - the sane and responsible public - would be wise to understand the depths of the crisis and the violent spirit that has overtaken the Govement;"
He noted that he worked harmoniously with Mr Netanahu for a long time, including during the Gaza war.
"But to my great regret, I have found myself lately in deep disagreement over professional and ethical issues with the prime minister. I have fought with all my strength against radicalisation, violence and racism in Israeli society, which percolates also into the Israel Defence Forces."
Mr Ya'alon recently angered Mr Netanyahu when he called for a soldier who shot and killed a wounded Palestinian man after an alleged stabbing incident to be brought to justice and when he defended a senior general who compared recent trends in Israel to pre-war Germany.
Mr Netanyahu expressed regret that Mr Ya'alon turned down his offer to become foreign minister.
"The change in portfolios did not stem from a crisis of faith between us, it stemmed from the need to expand the coalition in order to bring stability to Israel," he said, rejecting the allegation that Likud had been taken over by extremists.
"The Likud believes in democracy. The Likud is a liberal nationalist movement that is obligated to preserving Israel as Jewish and democratic state and represents the main strain of thought among the people."
Mr Ya'alon will be replaced in the Knesset by American-born Yehuda Glick. Mr Glick narrowly survived an assassination attempt in 2014 after being shot and seriously wounded by a Palestinian gunman.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 16 - 10:12 PM

That article was recent, by the way. April, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 16 - 10:09 PM

From the openDemocracy website, the article Shifty Antisemitism Wars.

In 2005, a draft, working definition of antisemitism was circulated by the European Union's Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). To the dismay of its critics, the document confused genuine antisemitism with criticism of Israel, and was repeatedly, and erroneously, promoted by Israel advocacy groups as the EU definition of antisemitism.

By 2013, the EUMC's successor body, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), had abandoned the politicised definition as unfit for purpose. Just this week, in response to a motion passed at NUS conference, the FRA explicitly denied having ever adopted the definition.

Erroneously, Keith. Get it? This document that you keep pushing down our throats was never ratified by the EU, never ratified by the 28 member states, as you claimed, and was officially shelved in 2013. The document you've relied on has no force in the EU, contrary to what you claim. Dismissed by the EU, but used by you to brand Richard antisemitic. Keith, you knew all this, therefore it seems that you have been lying to us. Your lengthier than usual post above was a dead giveaway, a desperate scrabble. Your central point that this document has any credibility in the EU has come crashing around your ears. Don't try to obfuscate, Keith. I can be devastatingly direct when confronting dishonesty when I want to be.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 16 - 04:01 PM

The document has not been officially adopted by the EU and has not been endorsed by the 28 member states. In fact, it was shelved, officially, in 2013. You are trying to mislead the people on this forum about the status of this document.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 16 - 11:44 AM

Steve,
" It's flawed, in my opinion, "

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 May 16 - 11:43 AM

Keith - yes.. I am aware you did acknowledge the difference, and that was a positive signal from you..

But it just seems to me, that since then you had either forgotten you said it, or were carrying on as if you hadn't...???

This thread of yours has inspired me to start googling around this issue,
and I am very encouraged to find many links supporting and confirming the suspicions I had arrived at
regarding a strategic ambush on the Labour party so soon to an election.

Many links, from so many disparate sources....

Also links highlighting disagreement and division between opposed factions within the worldwide jewish community..

I might have some jewish blood and an affinity for jewish and Israeli music and movies, but I am not a jew.
I don't know if you or bobad are or not..

But if we were, I guess I'd be in a more liberal and concilatory faction from the both of you.....????? 🤔

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 16 - 11:36 AM

Please demonstrate that it is a valid piece of evidence to support your case. Show me that it has, as you say, been agreed and endorsed by the member nations.

the most widely used definition of contemporary antisemitism is the Working Definition produced in 2005 by the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), an EU body which monitors racism and antisemitism in EU Member States (the EUMC has since been succeeded by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)).

In 2005, the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), now the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), adopted a "working definition on antisemitism" which is now the standard definition used around the world, from the European Parliament, to the UK College of Policing, to the US Department of State.

The (US)State Department report on Global Antisemitism in 2008 included the following: The EUMC's working definition provides a useful framework for identifying and understanding the problem and is adopted for the purposes of this report
The Working Definition of Antisemitism was cited by the US State Department's Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism in testimony given to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (in Helsinki) in 2011, and is currently endorsed on the State Department's 'Monitoring and Combating Antisemitism' page.
The Working Definition of Antisemitism was endorsed by the London Declaration of the Inter Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism in 2009.
In 2010, the UK All-Party Inquiry into antisemitism recommended that the Working Definition of Antisemitism should be adopted and promoted by the Government and law enforcement agencies.
The UK National Union of Students renewed their support for the Working Definition of Antisemitism in 2013.
An official document published by the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) recommends the Working Definition of Antisemitism as a valuable hate crime data collection tool for law enforcement agencies, and for educators.
The OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe )Parliamentary Assembly has formally recognized the Working Definition of Antisemitism.
The professional body in the UK for policing now includes the definition in their Hate Crime Operational Guidance (2014).

See also Bobad's report "
The Ottawa Protocol, comprised of 250 parliamentarians from 46 countries reaffirmed the EUMC working definition of Antisemitism at a conference in Ottawa in November, 2010."