The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[Top Cats Hat 10]

 

there is no need to add it other than to provide an easy get out clause for people that use anti-semitic language.

 

People that use anti Semitic language don't have a get out clause if they use that language.

 

So people can be found guilty of anti semitism without actually proving that they are? The proving of intent is a key part of most civilised legal processes. Are you supporting some form of Orwellian dystopia where simply saying or thinking something is a crime without any context. That is not a world that I want any part in.

 

I struggle to see how that helps the fight against anti Semitism, although it will certainly make people think twice about criticising Israel.

[Robin-H 11]

People that use anti Semitic language don't have a get out clause if they use that language.

 

So people can be found guilty of anti semitism without actually proving that they are? The proving of intent is a key part of most civilised legal processes. Are you supporting some form of Orwellian dystopia where simply saying or thinking something is a crime without any context. That is not a world that I want any part in.

 

I struggle to see how that helps the fight against anti Semitism, although it will certainly make people think twice about criticising Israel.

 

I don't understand what you're arguing.

 

You're saying that people that use anti-semitic language don't have a get out clause if they use that language. On the other hand, you're saying that people can use anti-semitic language and have a get out clause if it they just say that they didn't intend to be anti-semitic?

 

I don't recognise your analogy as anything close to what I am suggesting. Where have I suggested that saying or thinking something is a crime without any context? Have you read the IHRA definition? Context is a big part of it. IHRA has straightforward caveats that guard against it being misused to curtail freedom of speech.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

On the other hand, you're saying that people can use anti-semitic language and have a get out clause if it they just say that they didn't intend to be anti-semitic?

 

 

That is not a get out clause, it is a defence.

 

Do you think anyone would ever be found guilty of such things as harassment, stalking, intimidation or most hate crimes if they simply had to say to their accusers 'I didn't mean it'?

 

Two further keystones of modern jurisprudence are the presumption of innocence and the responsibility of the accuser to prove something was done, not the accused to prove that it wasn't. An accuser simply saying that "what you said or did was anti Semitic but I don't have to prove" it is just as futile an exercise as the accused simply saying "I didn't do it."

 

Without proving intent, the whole process achieves nothing.

[Robin-H 11]

That is not a get out clause, it is a defence.

 

Do you think anyone would ever be found guilty of such things as harassment, stalking, intimidation or most hate crimes if they simply had to say to their accusers 'I didn't mean it'?

 

Two further keystones of modern jurisprudence are the presumption of innocence and the responsibility of the accuser to prove something was done, not the accused to prove that it wasn't. An accuser simply saying that "what you said or did was anti Semitic but I don't have to prove" it is just as futile an exercise as the accused simply saying "I didn't do it."

 

Without proving intent, the whole process achieves nothing.

 

Have you read the IHRA definition? If you have, presumably you know that what you've suggested there could not happen under the definition. It specifically mentions the need for context. It wouldn't be possible for someone to just say 'what you said was anti-Semitic but I don't have to prove it' and it be therefore considered anti-semitic.

[alchresearch 214]

How much longer can Labour go on?

 

You have Tom Watson speaking out and being subject to abuse from Corbynistas, demanding his sacking (no doubt some of you will claim they're Tories).

 

Those moderate MPs defending Watson are also receiving abuse and now being labelled a "Cowards Coup".

 

You Corbyn fans only have yourselves to blame. You've built Corbyn up as a Christ-like figure, when in reality he's a scruffy old backbencher, out of his depth and pedaling easy answers. Now its collapsing all around you, but all you can do is lash out and blame others and call them Blairites and worse.

[chakademus 10]

How much longer can Labour go on?

 

You have Tom Watson speaking out and being subject to abuse from Corbynistas, demanding his sacking (no doubt some of you will claim they're Tories).

 

Those moderate MPs defending Watson are also receiving abuse and now being labelled a "Cowards Coup".

 

You Corbyn fans only have yourselves to blame. You've built Corbyn up as a Christ-like figure, when in reality he's a scruffy old backbencher, out of his depth and pedaling easy answers. Now its collapsing all around you, but all you can do is lash out and blame others and call them Blairites and worse.

 

Who's in control of the party??? that's right Corbyn & the left.

 

Corbyn is the saviour of the party, will win power for a long time. Old blairites will have to put up or leave the party.

 

---------- Post added 07-08-2018 at 10:42 ----------

 

To my mind there's too many in Labour who should really be in Libdems or tories. Chukka Ummuna is one & theres 50 or 60 deadwood others need to be cut.

[hobinfoot 25]

Who's in control of the party??? that's right Corbyn & the left.

 

Corbyn is the saviour of the party, will win power for a long time. Old blairites will have to put up or leave the party.

 

---------- Post added 07-08-2018 at 10:42 ----------

 

To my mind there's too many in Labour who should really be in Libdems or tories. Chukka Ummuna is one & theres 50 or 60 deadwood others need to be cut.

I didn't know Labour had become part of the communist party. How dare you call for MP's and other party members who have spent a lifetime fighting for labour to leave just because they don't believe in your extremist ideology.

[alchresearch 214]

To my mind there's too many in Labour who should really be in Libdems or tories. Chukka Ummuna is one & theres 50 or 60 deadwood others need to be cut.

 

There's your problem right there - in your mind.

 

No they shouldn't be Lib Dems or Tories - they're moderate centre Left Labour MPs. They evolved the party in the 90s, made it electable and popular. Some of these people have been MPs for decades and continue to win.

 

Yes, Brown and Blair tainted that, but the days of the old red left are dead. Corbyn supporters need to realise this rather than trying to get rid of "50 or 60" good MPs.

 

Jeremy Corbyn: 'I want a kinder politics'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-34392427/jeremy-corbyn-i-want-a-kinder-politics

 

That's a laugh. Corbynistas and Momentscum have turned Labour into The Nasty Party with all the hate that's going round. Ignoring all this anti-semitic business for a moment, when you're attacking your own MPs at the level that's going on something is very rotten.

Edited August 7, 2018 by alchresearch

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Who's in control of the party??? that's right Corbyn & the left.

Well, that bit is surely uncontentious. Nobody seems to think otherwise.

 

Corbyn is the saviour of the party, will win power for a long time.

But you've a very idiosyncratic definition of 'saviour' there! I see him as being kept in power by secret Conservative forces- he's a wonderful aid to the stability of HMG (and of Mrs May as PM)

[melthebell 862]

Even John Lydons now sucking in the Labour party anti-semetism crap and becoming a hasbeen with his recent rants (including supporting brexit) shows living in the US rots yer brain, sadly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQKEciopuxM

[ted77 10]

its amazing when people start throwing stones how many bounce back, draw your own conclusions who he thinks matters most

 

 

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20180104-pro-israel-editors-joke-about-iran-iraq-war-provokes-twitter-anger/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[mancmart 10]

I'm doing nothing to shut down debate and never would. I don't know about Tom Watson or any donations he gets. I also don't know what the international definition of anti- semititism is but it seems to have been adopted by many countries. But the leftist in the Labour Party have a real problem with excepting it.

I must admit that I don't know the ''international definition'' of anti-Semitism either, but I know racism against Jews like all forms of racism is wrong.

My problem with you and your comments are; 'the leftists in the labour party have a real problem with excepting (sic) it'

How do you criticise the left for not accepting something, when you do not know what it is they don't accept?

Is it racism they refuse to recognise, or some of the Israeli government's actions against Palestinians?

If it is the former, then you are right, but if it is the latter, then you must be wrong.

As for Watson accepting donations, if the donators are a Zionist or oppressive organisation, then he must go, as he cannot be viewed as above board with his opinions.

Maybe someone has the answers...

 

---------- Post added 07-08-2018 at 19:42 ----------

 

How much longer can Labour go on?

 

You have Tom Watson speaking out and being subject to abuse from Corbynistas, demanding his sacking (no doubt some of you will claim they're Tories).

 

Those moderate MPs defending Watson are also receiving abuse and now being labelled a "Cowards Coup".

 

You Corbyn fans only have yourselves to blame. You've built Corbyn up as a Christ-like figure, when in reality he's a scruffy old backbencher, out of his depth and pedaling easy answers. Now its collapsing all around you, but all you can do is lash out and blame others and call them Blairites and worse.

Yeah, and the Tories are doing a fine job aren't they?

Good old Bozza for P.M, no racism there is there?

Ha ha ha