Sounds like trump is planning on nominating someone named Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court.
- Thread starter Worgen
- Start date
That's how it read. Or, to be perhaps more specific, it read as a fundamental lack of concern about the issue itself.
And that's central to the problem with Corbyn's response. Corbyn's response to the EHRC report contained numerous apologies and statements of recognition that antisemitism happened and needs to be stamped out... but it also contained "buts" and self-justification. We've all heard this kind of mealy-mouthed apology before, and it never plays well.
Recall Kevin Spacey's apology for sexual assault, in which he did apologise, but then followed it up by coming out and saying that self-denial influenced his behaviour. OK, it might have done, that might be true. But that's a tremendously awful time to say so. It shows he's more interested in abdication of personal responsibility than he is in addressing the topic that's actually being addressed.
Corbyn's a lifelong anti-racism campaigner, and he's not stupid. But nor is he media savvy. Anyone with basic media-management skills could see how that would play. Insert a "but", and the apology is no longer the story, and people get the impression your priorities are elsewhere.
Is what actually happened an issue I should be concerned about?
Pam Bromley might be a Nazi. She also might just have reaaaaally bad judgment about Rothschild memes. OK.
If you take a look at annex 2 (starting on page 105) of the EHRC report, it's pretty clear that there is absolutely no way the BBC et al. should have been talking about this for years on end. That was the worst that was found: one member of parliament's questionable evaluation* of some propaganda related to Israel/Palestine and a councillor who may or may not be an anti-semite depending on how dumb she is.
*Naz Shah compared the policies of a settler colonial apartheid state with those of Hitler and shared a meme suggesting that Israel being relocated to the United States would solve the problem of Israeli-Palestinian conflict and violence. While the latter is very glib, neither of these seem terribly untrue considered in a vacuum, but sure, there is some rather troubling historical context in jumping to Hitler when discussing Israel (though perhaps comparing Israel to the British Empire's treatment of Kenya or other possessions might not go over quite as well in the UK). Ken Livingstone said Naz Shah's social media postings weren't antisemitic and so was called on to resign and did so.
These 2 and 18 'borderline cases' (which weren't outlined in any detail) out of 70 complaints. Uh..? Where's the beef?
Because it's not a nonsense narrative.
Anecdotally, we know a lot of people, especially Jews, were uncomfortable with stuff going on in the party. The Labour Party had an internal inquiry - which it also compromised by handing the author a peerage - which concluded no system racism but poor attitudes and set out a load of recommendations which the party failed to fully implement. There was then an investigation by a parliamentary committee which came to much the same conclusion (that Labour was not systemically antisemitic) but that it had failed to effectively respond to antisemitism. It - and Corbyn personally - then flub several more attempts to deal with antisemitism. He went out and apologised, and promised to tackle it, with singly little actual outcome.
And so it is we get to the current day and the EHCR report that, again, pointed out the party's failings with dealing with antisemitism effectively. And Corbyn, blind as ever to what needs to be done, says "Oh it's all an exaggeration". Which is precisely the fuck-up response that dragged it out for years in the first place. Never mind that the new party leader had already made clear that "it's an exaggeration" would not be an acceptable response to findings of problems, not that self-righteous Corbyn cares.
All the argument that Labour is no more antisemitic than general society really doesn't excuse the fact that Labour should have no tolerance of it. Under Corbyn, it de facto did tolerate it. And it is really painful to read fans of Corbyn act like it's a bigger problem that there's a stain on his record than that the party failed to deal with antisemitism. Because that's just another dose of Jews feeling like the party doesn't take discrimination against them seriously.
No more than? It seems less, really. Apart from that one idiot with the Rothschild memes, there was only Israel-related stuff that seemed more or less as 'antisemitic' as Norman Finkelstein's politics.
Like, yeah, it'll make Zionists like the girl in that video uncomfortable. Racists are often uncomfortable when confronted with their racism.
edit: As I wrote this post, I wondered if Finkelstein had a take on the controversy concerning Naz Shah. He has and I'm not terribly surprised by what he said: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/op...-scholar-behind-labour-s-antisemitism-scanda/
Now, a political party that wants to include Zionists probably shouldn't be as strident about Israel-Palestine as Norman Finkelstein, nor as dismissive of the feelings of Zionists or other people who, for whatever reason, are emotionally invested in seeing a middle eastern apartheid state as 'the good guys', but I find his reasoning very difficult to argue with as it comes to antisemitism in specific. A party that wants to include Muslims also shouldn't treat Naz Shah as it did-- a trick which, I'll note, also made its way to the United States to be used on Ilhan Omar and also, if I remember correctly, Rashida Tlaib.
Last edited:
I can't help but notice you're doing anything other than addressing the basis of the problem. Who gives a damn about Finkelstein's objections to a Guardian journalist? Neither of them are the Labour Party.
There are three main issues where the party was found at fault:
1) The party's handling of antisemitism complaints was deficient at pretty much every stage: failure to investigate, lack of information for complainants, procedural errors in investigations, delays, inconsistent sanctions for offences, inadequate general monitoring and recording etc. The difference between this and the party's much better systems for other forms of discrimination and harassment was starkly evident.
2) Repeated inappropriate intervention in the system by the party leader's office, contrary to the party's own rules never mind the general principle of transparency and good governance.
3) Failure to improve systems in line with official recommendations, either at all or in a timely manner.
These are failures of the party leadership - specifically, in the end, Jeremy Corbyn himself. He's not the victim here, much as he wants to act like he is. He failed to grasp the magnitude of the problem and to deal with it. And like the obstinate, self-righteous, self-pitying man that he is, he still won't take responsibility for it.
From a US perspective, the concerns you listed seem frankly bizarre. And the media reaction surreal.
I am not totally without sympathy for Corbyn, because I actually think it's true that the right-wing rags maginified it hugely compared to equivalent problems, such as the Tory party's racist members and relaxed attitude to investigating them. But there really was a problem, and he really didn't sort it out effectively, and it left plenty of real victims (abused Jews) and damaged the party. For Corbyn to blithely respond "it's all an exaggeration"... fuck.
I don't care whether it's mild compared to the USA. Shit that shouldn't stand shouldn't be allowed to stand, and it should have been an easy thing to fix.
Not literally, no. He said: "One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media."
So that it was an exaggeration was the message he wanted to put out, and that everyone was going to hear and take away from him.
Failing to deal with antisemitism in one's organisation is not the same thing as personally being an antisemite - the former can just be incompetence. And I certainly think Corbyn has no shortage of incompetence.
Mind you, I'll freely grant that Corbyn has numerous incidents on antisemitism that are uncomfortable. Some people have said that he has a bit of a "blind spot" to antisemitism - he's not very good at recognising it compared to other forms of discrimination. But I think to look at his career over the decades, he has a long record of staunch opposition to any form of discrimination and can't help but feel that outweighs his possible mis-steps.
Perhaps this is the answer to resolve the issue: tell Corbyn he needs to go on a certified antisemistism awareness course.
He can call up ADL for one of those I'm sure they will be thrilled. Maybe visit the memorials in Poland for good measure, make a show out of it.
Being Jewish in North Islington Labour Party - Red Pepper
Calling for Jeremy Corbyn's reinstatement, Lynne Segal looks back on her experience of being Jewish and in North Islington Labour Party
www.redpepper.org.uk
How many of those actually happened in the way described by critics?
Last edited:
Depends on the critic. I don''t think any are watertight or compelling, they're all pretty borderline.
Such as the mural with antisemitic figures - Corbyn says he didn't look at it carefully, and it is credible that he might not have done (because don't we all sometimes bash off some comments without enough scrutiny?) A lot of people are inclined to fill that void of certainty with their prejudices.
Wasn’t that actually a pretty famous Latin American mural, or by a widely renowned artist? I feel like I remember seeing it in a Spanish class I took. Kinda odd to pick on Corbyn for it if that was the case.
Corbyn could be picked on for his interactions with it. The artist would hold responsibility for making the mural (whatever that entails), of course.