Don’t be a capitalist sheep mate, we all know the Equality and Human Rights Commission is in on the conspiracy to ensure Corbyn didn’t win the election.Yep. Just an educated guess - I’d say the default position of most people on the planet (regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum) is for peace and justice but we don’t need to sign up to Jeremy Corbyn’s new project to prove we’re that way inclined, just like no-one should have to proclaim “I’m anti-facist!” on their Facebook profile to prove they’re anti-facist when that’s the default position of the majority anyway.
I don't dispute that but you remember Foot as a contemporary.
I think history remembers and will remember Foot chiefly for the 1983 election defeat (unless you're big into politics) whereas Corbyn will be remembered along the same lines for the 2019 election with possibly a focus on the re-emergence of antisemitism. I think most other stuff about his politics - the good and the bad - will be long forgotten.
A few JVL members were suspended/expelled under Corbyn's leadership Russ. I've made my views known on that group.Yet the ECHR did not accuse him of antisemitism.
15 Reasons the EHRC Report can and should be challenged | Jewish Voice for Labour
Jewish Voice for Labour says different.
Sheep you say?15 Reasons the EHRC Report can and should be challenged
Starmer is trying to insist that we must all accept the EHRC Report in full and without question. No report is beyond question and this one demands it more than most.
These are just some of the main points that demand interrogation.
- There is no finding of institutional antisemitism in the Report nor does it provide any evidence of widespread antisemitism.
- At no stage does the report try to describe, how and when any Jewish member of the Party had suffered discrimination or disadvantage on account of being Jewish.
- Corbyn and Formby tried to fix a broken disciplinary system they inherited from McNicol and are given no credit for that.
- The EHRC say they read the leaked GLU report but they never asked for the emails and posts the report depended on or commented on the factionalism and sabotage it revealed. They quoted it where it helped their argument but not where it contradicted it.
- McNicol is given a free pass and all blame is laid at Corbyn’s door even though only two actions by Corbyn by name are cited in the report and one of those was his commitment to ending antisemitism in the Party (Report p.6).
- Those complained about suffered more from the poor practices than did the complainants.
- The Report is about a political party but totally fails to be interested in how this affected how anyone operated and ignored both factionalism and personal careerism as drivers of actions.
- Much is made of the three unlawful acts but each finding of unlawful activity is dubious
- It is stretching credibility to interpret the actions of Livingstone and Bromley as acts the Party was responsible for – irrespective of whether you believe them to be antisemitic
- Interference with the disciplinary process may be poor practice but it is only unlawful if it is detrimental to people with a ‘protected characteristic – the report does not even attempt to establish that
- There was more training about antisemitism, not less, than any other area of harassment – except sexual harassment and the Report mis-characterises that: that training was about case management not about the nature of sexual harassment.
- The Report confuses education about antisemitism and training about how to handle disciplinary cases. It dismisses the programme offered by the highly regarded Pears Institute on Antisemitism on the basis of one comment by one participant (report p.92) and is contradictory about whether the Party should be delivering Education or Training.
- The report makes no attempt to estimate the numerical size of Labour’s antisemitism problem nor whether it had been accurately reported. It only refers to a sample of cases without describing how they had been selected or whether they were representative. Therefore, discussion of the scale of the problem and whether it had been exaggerated in no way contradicts the report nor is it proscribed by the report. The EHRC makes this clear with its reference to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- The Report rests upon a notion of ‘The Jewish Community’ that is homogeneous and is alleged to take offence in a uniform manner. Despite its talk about consulting Jewish stakeholders, Jews who think differently are disregarded.
- The Report is elusive about the evidence it used to produce such damning conclusions.
- The Report grew out of an exclusive campaign about antisemitism in the Labour Party. The campaign and the Report were indifferent to any problems that Black people, people of Asian origin or any other non-Jewish groupface. The campaign was also indifferent to antisemitism in other political parties.
- There are no comparisons with how other forms of racism were dealt with; this should have been of equal concern. The Report’s Terms of Reference embraced all forms of racism (Report p. 123).
- There are no comparisons with how other parties deal with antisemitism; without this there is no context.
- The unacknowledged context of the Report is deep conflict within the Party to the situation in Palestine/Israel. The whole campaign gagged Palestinian members of the Labour Party from speaking about their own experiences. The Report compounds this silencing.
- The over-concentration of the media on alleged Labour Antisemitism at the expense of concern about antisemitism elsewhere or discrimination against other groups produced a distorting environment for the Report; the Report neither acknowledged nor compensated for this.
I'd intended to steer well clear of this thread, and this is off the direct topic, but the members of the EHRC are political appointees. (Sorry the report is from the Guardian but you wouldn't find such concerns in the Torygraph.) And no, I'm not suggesting the EHRC report was an anti-Corbyn conspiracy. (And what has happened to the Tory investigations into MPs and candidates accused of Islamaphobia and/or antisemitism?)Don’t be a capitalist sheep mate, we all know the Equality and Human Rights Commission is in on the conspiracy to ensure Corbyn didn’t win the election.
You must realise that unless you totally agree with Corbyn and his mob, you’re not for peace or justice, even if that means we ignore racism when it suits.
Peace and justice is not copyright. Even the Pope's had a go. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace - Wikipediaa few thoughts
1) There already is a "peace and justice project" ( http://www.peaceandjusticeproject.org )who are some sort of Anabaptists/Mennonites and appear to be active and organised. Probably why it's at "www.thecorbynproject.com".
2) "Our areas of focus will be poverty, inequality and corporate power; global co-operation and international peace; colonialism and self-determination; democracy and human rights; and climate justice." - Reads like a 6th form manifesto. Choose one. When you're making headway, you can take on another, then another, and so on.
3) It has the faint odour of grift. Not on a Trump scale, and I don't think any money will end u in JCs pocket, but it will fund a few washed-up left-wingers in their attempt to remain relevant by preaching to the converted - paid for by the converted. A similar model that washed-up right wingers utilise so well in the US.
4) Some popular movememts grow organically to become a force for change. There is nothing organic about this. It feels like the American re-write of a British sit-com. Too processed and strained.
5) Because it's not organic and won't have a mass following it needs a statesman to give it any real chance of making a difference. Corbyn i not a statesman.
It's a no from me. Better putting time and resources in to existing organisations that are making inroads already.
Yeah, you'd just think he'd choose a name he could get the website for.Peace and justice is not copyright. Even the Pope's had a go. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace - Wikipedia
As much as I get the idea that this (whatever this is) happened on his watch therefore he must bear some responsibility you have to consider the context. The leaked internal report (which was to form the basis of Labour's submission to the enquiry) and seems to be holed up in a patch of long grass at HQ provides it imo.I have already made my feelings clear on Starmer somehow being allowed to act like he wasn’t in the shadow cabinet during the mess but one would have to agree that as leader he’s very much done the correct things, moved those responsible away and, in a matter of months I think it’s fair to say confidence has been at least somewhat restored.
Regarding leadership, this is the specifics from the report. Peace and justice? Don’t make me laugh:
To be very clear, it states that at best, the leadership didn’t do enough to prevent antisemitism, at worst, they actually accepted it.
I know we have a very partisan poster in this thread, I am not referring to you here, claiming that either you’re with this campaign or you’re not for peace and justice, I am saying that I am not for this campaign and Jeremy Corbyn precisely because I am for peace and justice. Because they’ve called themselves that, doesn’t mean they are.