Some sophisticated people are saying that while an antisemite used to be a person who hates Jews, he is now a person who the Jews hate.
https://engageonline.wordpress.com/2016/05/06/the-job-of-labours-inquiry-is-to-navigate-the-party-back-into-thebroad-rational-consensus-on-antisemitism-david-hirsh/
Labour's inquiry must navigate the party back to democratic consensus on antisemitism. https://t.co/9qxIuJp3T0— David Hirsh (@DavidHirsh) May 6, 2016
@DavidHirsh Is there such a thing as a "democratic consensus on anti-Semitism"?— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
Is there such a thing as a "democratic consensus on anti-Semitism" as @DavidHirsh claims? If so, what is it? https://t.co/xJ0zIkXucE— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@DavidHirsh I have read your piece and the answer to that question is as clear as mud.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@DavidHirsh I would anticipate that you would want the definition of anti-Semitism to be broad as possible so the charge is easily made out.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@DavidHirsh What do you mean by @jeremycorbyn "accounting for his political history"? @SeumasMilne @STWuk @ken4london @PeoplesMomentum— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
Please read this carefully and tell me exactly what @DavidHirsh is proposing here in his abstraction of abstractions https://t.co/xJ0zIkXucE— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@DavidHirsh In your piece you do not once mention US foreign policy. Why is that?— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@DavidHirsh Muslim @SadiqKhan winning by so great a margin against Jewish @ZacGoldsmith is a reaction against accusations of anti-Semitism.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@DavidHirsh Would you agree that Jews complaining about anti-Semitism actually increases it?— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@DavidHirsh There should of course be a legal and objective definition of anti-Semitism so everyone knows where they stand.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@DavidHirsh There is a suspicion that you want the definition of anti-Semitism to be made out on the basis of how many Jews are offended.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@DavidHirsh Do you want the definition of anti-Semitism to be as wide and vague as possible to instil a fear of speaking on the subject?— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@DavidHirsh Have you considered that gentiles are tired of treading on eggshells every time they want to discuss Hitler/Jews/Israel/Zionism?— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@DavidHirsh Have you considered that restrictions on discussing Hitler/Jews/Israel/Zionism actually increases anti-Semitism in the gentile?— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@grehale I suspect @DavidHirsh just wants to reinforce a neurotic fear in the gentile politician about discussing Hitler/Jews/Israel/Zionism— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@grehale Like the Twelve Tables of Rome, but I'm sure that's the last thing @DavidHirsh wants.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@grehale I believe Jews want gentile politicians to believe that saying the wrong thing about Hitler/Israel/Jews/Zionism wd be career-ending— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@DavidHirsh Have you considered that the victims of US neocon foreign policy ie Muslims have increased their hostility to Jews generally?— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@DavidHirsh Even if @UKLabour expelled all its Muslim members as a gesture of submission, would complaints of anti-Semitism cease?— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@DavidHirsh It is not only Muslims who are bothered about America's neocon wars that it has cajoled NATO members into fighting.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@Mohammed_Amin The anti-Semitism row also helped Sadiq Khan, probably, when Muslims who might have voted for Goldsmith voted for Khan.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@grehale @DavidHirsh It is silly to forbid people from hating certain protected groups of people. It would only create more hatred.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@grehale @DavidHirsh The existence of thoughtcrime legislation is in itself evidence of ideological suppression.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@grehale @DavidHirsh Examples of thoughtcrime legislation: Equality Act 2010, Blasphemy Act 1697, Holocaust Denial laws.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
How would Jews like the new definition of anti-Semitism to be? @libertyhq @davidhirsch https://t.co/YLJPi2oAoc— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@grehale @DavidHirsh But that is exactly what Zionists and a pro-Zionist government would wish to prevent.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@grehale @DavidHirsh https://t.co/cvvWIGUncW was the Islamic equivalent of the First Amendment. The Bible has no equivalent of this.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@grehale @DavidHirsh The British government would be complicit with Zionists in preventing discussion of British foreign policy.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@grehale @DavidHirsh The Blasphemy Act 1697 made it a crime to deny the divinity of Christ, effectively criminalising Jews and Muslims.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@grehale @DavidHirsh The Equality Act 2010 forbids holding certain views on protected groups and acting on them. Thought is discrimination.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@grehale @libertyhq @DavidHirsh The British government is pro-Zionist simply because it would regard itself as the midwife of Zionism.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@grehale @libertyhq @DavidHirsh My bottom line: there should be no thoughtcrime legislation protecting any group/person from being hated.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@grehale @libertyhq @DavidHirsh All anti-discrimination legislation is thoughtcrime legislation and all of that should be repealed.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@grehale @libertyhq @DavidHirsh Zionists would find the definition of anti-Semite as anyone whom Jews hate for any reason very convenient.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@grehale @libertyhq @DavidHirsh Our emotions are an integral part of us. How dare the state tell us whom we may or may not hate?— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@grehale @libertyhq @DavidHirsh Saying that a certain person or group must not be hated only increases resentment against him/her/them.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@grehale @libertyhq @DavidHirsh There are already laws forbidding us from acting on our hatred ie committing crimes against those we hate.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@grehale @libertyhq @DavidHirsh Allowing people to express their hatred is a safety valve, especially if it is legitimate criticism.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
@DavidHirsh @grehale @libertyhq Free speech is meaningless when we cannot express our hatred or state the reasons for it.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 7, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment