frostyjacks wrote: » In other news, Britain has adopted a new, wider definition of what constitutes anti-Semitism. It means that even criticising Israel could be deemed anti-Semitic. I don't believe a similar standard exists for criticism of the Vatican. Strange, that. "UK adopts official anti-Semitism definition as attacks rise", was the headline on Sky News. Official definition, as though it has the approval of anti-Semites. Also note the mention of a supposed rise in attacks, so even before you've read the article they already have you believing this development is necessary. Of course, it's a myth that the Jews have control of the media.
Sand wrote: » I think its the street violence, the identification of an 'other' who is not entitled to the rights of citizenship and can and should be justifiably attacked violently and even killed. Its probably the only decent point made in the whole video. A small vanguard of violent activists of course, but if that weirdo had managed to kill Trump lets not pretend there would not have been an orgy of celebration on social media to rival the gloating that greeted Thatchers death.
midnight city wrote: » He makes some good points in the first half of that video.
Tony EH wrote: » You'll find few people who wouldn't be, at the very least, disturbed at this "criticising Israel" equalling this "anti-Semitism". However, then you fcuk it all up with this -> "it's a myth that the Jews have control of the media". Well done. It isn't the "media" that makes laws. That'll be government, who at the moment is the Conservatives. So, aim at your targets better. This is probably a move triggered by lobbying from the Board of Deputies of British Jews and other Jewish groups in Britian that have been looking to have this move in place for quite some time. Not to mention Israel itself, who have also been seeking to hide behind the anti semitism slur to deflect from their more nefarious actions in Palestine. If you're looking to blame something, blame the right thing.
“Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
oscarBravo wrote: » Hang on a second. The definition of anti-semitism adopted by the British government (among others) is: Where's the mention of criticism of Israel?
frostyjacks wrote: » The guidance from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, who supplied the definition, says it could include criticisms which target Israel, if this was “conceived as a Jewish collectivity”. Even though Israel explicitly defines itself as a Jewish state.
We recommend that the IHRA definition, with our additional caveats, should be formally adopted by the UK Government, law enforcement agencies and all political parties, to assist them in determining whether or not an incident or discourse can be regarded as antisemitic. ‘Additional Caveats’ (point 3) We broadly accept the IHRA definition, but propose two additional clarifications to ensure that freedom of speech is maintained in the context of discourse about Israel and Palestine, without allowing antisemitism to permeate any debate. The definition should include the following statements: It is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent. It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.
Government has agreed to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition on anti-Semitism. We believe that references within the definition stating that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic” are sufficient to ensure freedom of speech.
oscarBravo wrote: » The Home Affairs Select Committee made this recommendation: The British government's response was: So I ask again: how exactly is the British government equating criticism of Israel with anti-semitism?
frostyjacks wrote: » It's in the very piece you quoted, criticism of Israel could be deemed anti-Semitic if they believe that is one's intent.
oscarBravo wrote: » Well, yes. If the intent is anti-semitic, then that's anti-semitism. Not sure what the problem is.
frostyjacks wrote: » The problem is that people will be increasingly hesitant to criticise Israel, lest they be charged with hate crime. No other nation has this level of protection afforded to them.
Widdershins wrote: » No other nation has this level of criticism directed at them. Thread's great-many Jew haters outing themselves in one place.
oscarBravo wrote: » I have no hesitation in criticising Israel. All I have to do is not be anti-semitic when I do so. It's not actually hard.
Widdershins wrote: » Anyone who thinks race is a loaded term should not be discussing anything to do with races until they have shed their hang ups.
frostyjacks wrote: » See what I mean? Even discussing criticism of Israel leads to accusations of being a "Jew-hater". Many people will simply not stick their head above the parapet anymore.
frostyjacks wrote: » See what I mean? Even discussing criticism of Israel leads to accusations of being a "Jew-hater".
Brian? wrote: » Racially aware? Do tell.
PopePalpatine wrote: » He should be careful what he wishes for.
osmiumartist wrote: » Why the history lesson? Which countries have racist laws right now and what races do they discriminate against?
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Racism doesn't require laws to exist.
PopePalpatine wrote: » A poster was getting euphoric about the prospect of "more and more people are becoming racially aware". Do you really think that WASP believers in racial quackery won't try to distinguish themselves from other white ethnic groups?
