Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[TheHowieLama]

16 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Radical action on the privatisation issue of utilities and transport? 

Probably not the best place to start.

[Section_31]

56 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

The controversial IHRA definition warns “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” constitutes antisemitism.

 

Israel's an apartheid state, that's a fact but is now supposed to be antisemitic. Perfect example of living in a post-truth reality. They'd rather create fake racism than deal with the actual racism that's gone on in Israel for decades. Orwellian fraud cunts. Two of the best things we could do for maybe the entire planet is massively reduce the influence of right wing Zionists and their lies + deal with the ISIS/Al-Qaeda supporting cunts in Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Genuine question. But that stuff in the echo this week about the Liverpool Lord mayor posting something about monkeys and black people, why wasn't that Corbyn's fault but anything antisimetic is?

 

How come said mayor wasn't part of Corbyn's vile racist troll army?

[moof]

37 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Radical action on the privatisation issue of utilities and transport? 

Yes of course. If we want to change the way this country is structured we need to put an end to corporations and capitalists profiting off the basic needs of the civilians. That’s a priority. 

[The Guest]

6 hours ago, Boss said:

 

Quantitative Easing is done to boost the economy and create economic growth. Those Labour nationalisation plans will cost hundreds of billions. The country does not have that kind of money to fritter away on superfluous things. The only way it could be done is by printing money, which will cause inflation, devaluing the currency and making poor people poorer. 

I’ve never read such uninformed shite in my life.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

Fuck the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

 

 

It's negged you. 

 

It turns out that Captain Freedom stops short of fighting for freedom of speech. In certain circumstances. 

[sir roger]

JVL & Human Rights lawyers attacking the Terms of Reference for the EHRC report which appears to be going beyond its legal remit.

 

The JVL submission notes that:

We draw the Commission’s attention to section 3(a) of Schedule 2 to the Equality Act 2006. This requires the Commission in preparing its Terms of Reference to specify not only the person or persons to be investigated but also the nature of the unlawful act (or acts), which the Commission suspects. We submit that the TOR of this investigation manifestly fail to do this and is, therefore, defective and in breach of the statutory requirements imposed on the Commission. In order to comply we submit that the Commission must without delay repair these defects and publish the nature of the unlawful act or acts which the Commission suspects. Without that information, all respondents are denied the ability to complete our representations.

In addition, the TOR reveals a number of limitations in the scope of the investigation to which we now draw attention…

The investigation is carried out under the authority of section 20 and Schedule 2 of the Equality Act 2006. Section 20 empowers the Commission to investigate whether a person has committed an unlawful act (or acts) but only acts which are in contravention of the Equality Act (see s.34). The definition in paragraph 7v of the TOR acknowledges this and limits the subject matter to race or religious discrimination, i.e. on the ground of Jewish ethnicity or Judaism. (see paras.7p and q). The only such acts which could be relevant to this investigation are acts of discrimination on those grounds. Paragraph 1 of the TOR adds a further limitation: to acts in relation to Labour Party members and/or applicants for membership and /or associates.

There is a further crucial limitation on the Commission‘s investigatory powers and the scope of this investigation. It cannot be directed at antisemitism in general. This is highlighted by the fact that the TOR properly make no reference whatsoever to antisemitism (except in para 8 in references to the IHRA definition). The importance of this point is that the Commission must take care to limit its investigation to acts which are not only antisemitic but are acts in breach of the Equality Act. The Labour Party may choose to treat some conduct as antisemitic and in breach of party rules which the Equality Act does not prohibit. For example, many comments on social media may be abusive and insulting to Jews or some Jews but are not unlawful. Or they may raise issues about Zionism…

The Commission suspects that unlawful acts may have been committed but gives no indication whatsoever of what such acts may be. Pending further clarification, we can only surmise, on the basis of our experience and knowledge of such allegations as have been reported in the media and elsewhere, that they might, at worst, suggest that there have been inadequate, partial or inordinately delayed investigationsby the Labour Party, or its employees or agents, into complaints of antisemitism made to the Party against other members…The Commission must consider carefully whether, on this basis, the complaints of unlawful discrimination by the Party, against its members, fall within the scope of the Equality Act at all…

Without evidence of discrimination we are at a loss to see how any unlawful act by the party within the scope of the investigation could be established.

Paragraph 3 of the TOR lists four examples of issues which may be looked at. The first of these is whether unlawful acts have been committed. Again, we point out that the only unlawful acts that fall within the permitted scope of the investigation are the acts in breach of the Equality Act, mentioned earlier. We also repeat that these are the only matters which the Commission has power to investigate. There is no legal basis for extending the investigation into other areas, except to the extent that they provide evidence of unlawful acts. It is incumbent on the Commission at least to state, in the TOR, the nature of any unlawful acts which it suspects may arise from the matters described in these sub-paragraphs. It is in breach of section 3(a) of Schedule 2 of the Equality Act 2006 by failing to do so.

The submission also notes that neither the IHRA ‘working definition’, nor Labour’s Royall or Chakrabarti reports have legal force – and indeed that the working definition explicitly describes itself as not legally binding.

 

 

• Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC 
• Professor Tony Booth 
• Miriam David, Professor Emerita, Sociology of Education, UCL Institute of Education
• Alison Harris
• Adam Hurst
• Antony Lerman 
• Diana Neslen
• Dorothy Macedo 
• Stephen Marks 
• Jane Miller, Professor Emeritus (Education)UCL
• Avi Shlaim, Emeritus Professor of International Relations at Oxford
• Jamie Stern-Weiner, ( PhD candidate at the University of Oxford) 
• Ellie Palmer, Professor Emeritus, School of Law/Human Rights Centre, University of Essex 
• Naomi Wayne

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

Fuck the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

 

 

I think I read somewhere that even one of the authors of the IHRA Working Definition warned that it shouldn't be misused to suppress freedom of speech in that way.

[Rico1304]

Just now, AngryofTuebrook said:

I think I read somewhere that even one of the authors of the IHRA Working Definition warned that it shouldn't be misused to suppress freedom of speech in that way.

Aren’t they just saying they can’t guarantee someone won’t say something racist?   Low bar. 

[moof]

2 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

I think I read somewhere that even one of the authors of the IHRA Working Definition warned that it shouldn't be misused to suppress freedom of speech in that way.

You did

 

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20171107/106610/HHRG-115-JU00-Wstate-SternK-20171107.pdf

[Strontium]

4 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

I think I read somewhere that even one of the authors of the IHRA Working Definition warned that it shouldn't be misused to suppress freedom of speech in that way.

 

Quite.

 

That won't stop those with an axe to grind from misrepresenting the IHRA definition.

[Numero Veinticinco]

I don’t think the IHRA definition of antisemitism is very good at all, to be honest. That said, it’s an academic issue and somewhat pedantic, so that shouldn’t be used to get in the way of it’s intended purpose of defining and stopping antisemitism. It could do with revision though. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

23 minutes ago, moof said:

Yes of course. If we want to change the way this country is structured we need to put an end to corporations and capitalists profiting off the basic needs of the civilians. That’s a priority. 

I don’t see it as a pressing concern to socialise trains and electricity companies. Honestly, I don’t. I share your general principle, that basic needs should be met and available from the state and they should do so without a small group of extremely wealthy people profiting from it. However, I think calling for revolutionary changes could i the short term makes things dramatically worse for the people you’re trying to help, and I’m the medium to long term only provide moderate gains. That’s why I say be pragmatic and do what works rather than barging through on principle. 

 

That and I think we have much bigger fish to fry at the moment. 

[moof]

3 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I don’t think the IHRA definition of antisemitism is very good at all, to be honest. That said, it’s an academic issue and somewhat pedantic, so that shouldn’t be used to get in the way of it’s intended purpose of defining and stopping antisemitism. It could do with revision though. 

Yeah, I’m not certain it’s all that useful in stopping antisemitism. It’s certainly handy for stifling pro Palestinian activism, though

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Just now, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

Quite.

 

That won't stop those with an axe to grind from misrepresenting the IHRA definition.

Or others with a different axe* pretending that the Labour NEC's proposed Code of Conduct didn't contain the Working Definition and all but half a sentence of one of the examples.

 

(*That's not intended as an attempt at a personal dig: I genuinely can't remember your opinion on this. )

 

It still pisses me off that Labour never stood their ground over what would have been a very valuable weapon in the fight against anti-Semitism. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

12 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I don’t think the IHRA definition of antisemitism is very good at all, to be honest. That said, it’s an academic issue and somewhat pedantic, so that shouldn’t be used to get in the way of it’s intended purpose of defining and stopping antisemitism. It could do with revision though. 

That's pretty much why it's referred to as a Working Definition: even the IHRA don't intend for it to be set in stone.

[Red Phoenix]

50 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

Genuine question. But that stuff in the echo this week about the Liverpool Lord mayor posting something about monkeys and black people, why wasn't that Corbyn's fault but anything antisimetic is?

 

How come said mayor wasn't part of Corbyn's vile racist troll army?

 

I think they're just focusing on antisemitism smears because to start adding in other stuff would be too obvious and people would start seeing how much bullshit it is a lot faster. Fortunately some of them have still been going so over the top that it seems to have allowed more people to see the truth of it lately. Maybe the panorama thing was a bit of a tipping point where they went too far.

 

[Red Phoenix]

33 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

It's negged you. 

 

It turns out that Captain Freedom stops short of fighting for freedom of speech. In certain circumstances. 

 

It's ok, will hopefully pay for a sub again shortly and go back to randomly neg some of his old posts from 2010 or something (joke.)

[Anubis]

10 hours ago, Boss said:

A vote for 16 year olds is the dumbest thing ever. As if the country doesn't have enough uninformed people voting as it is. 

I’ve met plenty of 16 year olds who are more clued-up or who give a shit about the people and world around them, than 30yr+ gobshites who believe anything the Sun tells them and are selfish twats.

[Rico1304]

30 minutes ago, Anubis said:

I’ve met plenty of 16 year olds who are more clued-up or who give a shit about the people and world around them, than 30yr+ gobshites who believe anything the Sun tells them and are selfish twats.

So how does that impact on the age of responsibility, putting 16 yr olds in adult prisons?  

[Strontium]

11 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

So how does that impact on the age of responsibility, putting 16 yr olds in adult prisons?  

 

They'll all be earning 10 quid an hour, so they won't need to commit crime in the first place.

[Rico1304]

So, the ride wasn’t a problem. It was racists being racists that was the problem. 

 

“Officials told organisers there was a risk speakers might express views which contradicted the council’s policies on community cohesion and equality”

 

 

[Red Phoenix]

9 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

So, the ride wasn’t a problem. It was racists being racists that was the problem. 

 

“Officials told organisers there was a risk speakers might express views which contradicted the council’s policies on community cohesion and equality”

 

 

 

If you read on that was just what they said to the organisers. Right after your quote there's this :

 

Quote

Behind the scenes, council staff raised fears of a “real risk” that the event and its organisers could be seen to have breached the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism because of references on their website to apartheid and ethnic cleansing. One official said there were concerns “not least because of the recent furour [sic] within the Labour party over Anti Semitism [sic]”.

When considering how to explain the decision, one council official said it would be wise to “avoid the anti Semitism aspect ref their website as this could open a can of worms and come back to bite us”. There was no reference to antisemitism in the email to the event’s organisers.

The internal emails, released after a freedom of information request by the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, revealed the council attempted to assess the Big Ride website according to the rubric of the controversial IHRA definition.

 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

26 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

So, the ride wasn’t a problem. It was racists being racists that was the problem. 

 

“Officials told organisers there was a risk speakers might express views which contradicted the council’s policies on community cohesion and equality”

 

 

 

[Rico1304]

#Yewtree

[Rico1304]

49 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

If you read on that was just what they said to the organisers. Right after your quote there's this :

 

 

That’s exactly the fucking same thing.