General Election

There must be more to life than football?
User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27940
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Mon Nov 25, 2019 8:09 am

Clearly the Lib Dem one with all the swearing...

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27940
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Tue Nov 26, 2019 7:29 am


mcteeth
Ageing international
Posts: 4457
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:44 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mcteeth » Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:24 pm

Not ignoring the issue of antisemitism in the Labour party and how it has been tackled, but I don't think it is necessarily right for religious leaders to enter into political debate during an election unless they demonstrate a level of integrity. If he'd also expressed concerns about Islamophobia within the Tory party and Johnson being unfit for office then it would offer the right balance.

But this is also a Chief Rabbi that describes Johnson as a longstanding friend...

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27940
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:58 pm

If anti-semitism was about religion, you would have a point. Perhaps the conflating of Jewishness and Judaism is at the core of the problem?

mcteeth
Ageing international
Posts: 4457
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:44 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mcteeth » Thu Nov 28, 2019 2:29 pm

That wasn't the point I was making...

Islamophobia isn't just related to religion...

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27940
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:08 pm

That's a curious sentence. It is by definition prejudice against the religion of Islam. Whilst it could be argued that cases of Islamaphobia could be borne out of racism towards one or more of the ethnic backgrounds that commonly follow that religion, it is not in itself a form of racism. Whereas anti-semitism is. And that distinction is important if you want to weigh up whether a religious leader should criticise racism towards his own ethnicity without mentioning attitudes towards other religions by other groups. There's an easy test, substitute the race and religion of the leader so they don't share the same adjective and see if it still seems fair comment.

Something that does need censure.

User avatar
RoverthePennines
Regular international
Posts: 1377
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:48 pm
Location: Göteborg
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by RoverthePennines » Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:57 pm

That’s a weak and slightly shameful defence. There is more than enough written, researched and read into the the debate to conclude that Islamaphobia is a racialised discourse. Someone of your intellect should know better than to deny it.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27940
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:12 am

RoverthePennines wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:57 pm
That’s a weak and slightly shameful defence. There is more than enough written, researched and read into the the debate to conclude that Islamaphobia is a racialised discourse. Someone of your intellect should know better than to deny it.
It says something that that's what motivates you to join the discussion. As I said, there are cases where Islamaphobia is borne out of racism. But it is not racism in itself, fundamentally it cannot be, and we are free to join or oppose any religion we wish in this country.

And the thing that's really disappointing is that I'm sure you know I wasn't defending it, but pointing out it is neither equivalent nor relevant to Labour's anti-semitism issues. Which you've noticeably not mentioned.

User avatar
RoverthePennines
Regular international
Posts: 1377
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:48 pm
Location: Göteborg
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by RoverthePennines » Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:26 am

Defending it was the wrong term I admit. But, you are seeking to draw distinctions that have no ethical imperative or real world value for the sake of winning a debate on an Internet forum.

Semantic differences have no place in the comparison of the ills of anti-semitism and islamophobia, there very much is an equivalence in the human terms of its impact. Drawing a response from dictionary definitions rather than empathy for those impacted is not valuable in this instance.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 15462
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Fri Nov 29, 2019 9:09 am

Rover the Top wrote:
Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:12 am
RoverthePennines wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:57 pm
That’s a weak and slightly shameful defence. There is more than enough written, researched and read into the the debate to conclude that Islamaphobia is a racialised discourse. Someone of your intellect should know better than to deny it.
It says something that that's what motivates you to join the discussion. As I said, there are cases where Islamaphobia is borne out of racism. But it is not racism in itself, fundamentally it cannot be, and we are free to join or oppose any religion we wish in this country.
And you can be anti-semitic towards converted Jews.

I've stopped posting on this for a little bit, but the thing that says something, more than anything, is how many people call you out on being unbalanced when it comes to political discussion and ethical issues.

Will have no effect as usual, and no doubt it's everyone else arguing that black is white.....

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27940
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Fri Nov 29, 2019 10:36 am

RoverthePennines wrote:
Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:26 am
Defending it was the wrong term I admit. But, you are seeking to draw distinctions that have no ethical imperative or real world value for the sake of winning a debate on an Internet forum.

Semantic differences have no place in the comparison of the ills of anti-semitism and islamophobia, there very much is an equivalence in the human terms of its impact. Drawing a response from dictionary definitions rather than empathy for those impacted is not valuable in this instance.
You make something of a fair point, but I disagree there's just a semantic difference between a person's ethnicity and their chosen religious beliefs. I think it would be a dangerous step to take if religions were treated like race, especially since some belief systems are intrinsically incompatible with each other. I think holistically, it's perfectly ethical to censure religious practices and attitudes. As I suggested before, think of examples with other races and religions, and I think the difference becomes clear. But I do accept the impact of discrimination can be the same though.

However I take exception to the notion that I'm just trying to win an argument. My entire objection was to the drawing of comparisons on political grounds, with no empathy for those impacted. Why should a victim of racism need to condemn other forms of prejudice to speak out about what affects them? It makes zero sense. Even with a valid equivalence, "but what about them?" isn't an appropriate response.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27940
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Fri Nov 29, 2019 11:05 am

mrblackbat wrote:
Fri Nov 29, 2019 9:09 am

And you can be anti-semitic towards converted Jews.

I've stopped posting on this for a little bit, but the thing that says something, more than anything, is how many people call you out on being unbalanced when it comes to political discussion and ethical issues.

Will have no effect as usual, and no doubt it's everyone else arguing that black is white.....
This is just one corner of the internet where I'm aware I'm out of step with a small number of others. However, I'm not limited to reading views from here, out in the wider world there's a whole array of opinions to weigh up and balance against the heavily skewed political leanings of Roverstalk. If you think everyone else on here is offering balance, you really, really need to broaden your horizons. Criticism of Labour's anti-semitism problem primarily comes from within the party itself, it's not a political us and them thing.

User avatar
RoverthePennines
Regular international
Posts: 1377
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:48 pm
Location: Göteborg
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by RoverthePennines » Fri Nov 29, 2019 11:17 am

Rover the Top wrote:
Fri Nov 29, 2019 10:36 am
RoverthePennines wrote:
Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:26 am
Defending it was the wrong term I admit. But, you are seeking to draw distinctions that have no ethical imperative or real world value for the sake of winning a debate on an Internet forum.

Semantic differences have no place in the comparison of the ills of anti-semitism and islamophobia, there very much is an equivalence in the human terms of its impact. Drawing a response from dictionary definitions rather than empathy for those impacted is not valuable in this instance.
You make something of a fair point, but I disagree there's just a semantic difference between a person's ethnicity and their chosen religious beliefs. I think it would be a dangerous step to take if religions were treated like race, especially since some belief systems are intrinsically incompatible with each other. I think holistically, it's perfectly ethical to censure religious practices and attitudes. As I suggested before, think of examples with other races and religions, and I think the difference becomes clear. But I do accept the impact of discrimination can be the same though.

However I take exception to the notion that I'm just trying to win an argument. My entire objection was to the drawing of comparisons on political grounds, with no empathy for those impacted. Why should a victim of racism need to condemn other forms of prejudice to speak out about what affects them? It makes zero sense. Even with a valid equivalence, "but what about them?" isn't an appropriate response.
I accept a lot of that, but I would contend that Islamophobia is more than just censuring religious practices and ethics. Its possible to disagree with the praxis of Islam and not be Islamphobic. The former can be based on reasonable and logical objection, i.e. where FGM is carried out in religious contexts. Islamophobia, I would argue is a larger dynamic, inclusive of racial discrimination. In a way, anti-semitism represents an ethno/racial dynamic, inclusive of religion, but since we agree on the impacts of discrimination then they is no point labouring on that.

Your latter point then. Fair enough, my bad for going a little ad hominem. You are right, "what about them?" is not an appropriate response. I think much of the issue relies upon timing. The Chief Rabbi did not respond in the same manner when May was campaigning. Admittedly, I'm basing that statement on recollection, I could quite well be proved wrong on that. The general motion against anti-semitism in the Labour Party has been consistent and of course there is no real need on that basis for the Chief Rabbi to commit his thoughts to the public every time there is an election - it is, or should be, public knowledge that Labour are contending with the issue. But, since he has open personal ties to Johnson, it could be assumed that he is no longer offering a non-secular opinion, and by offering that statement he has opened himself up to unnecessary criticism. Although he needn't comment on Islamophobia, as you rightly say, by suggesting a Labour vote would be indicative of the country's moral compass, he himself is creating the implication that Islamophobia is less of an issue in positing that the Tories are in some way morally superior.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27940
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:52 pm

RoverthePennines wrote:
Fri Nov 29, 2019 11:17 am

Your latter point then. Fair enough, my bad for going a little ad hominem. You are right, "what about them?" is not an appropriate response. I think much of the issue relies upon timing. The Chief Rabbi did not respond in the same manner when May was campaigning. Admittedly, I'm basing that statement on recollection, I could quite well be proved wrong on that. The general motion against anti-semitism in the Labour Party has been consistent and of course there is no real need on that basis for the Chief Rabbi to commit his thoughts to the public every time there is an election - it is, or should be, public knowledge that Labour are contending with the issue. But, since he has open personal ties to Johnson, it could be assumed that he is no longer offering a non-secular opinion, and by offering that statement he has opened himself up to unnecessary criticism. Although he needn't comment on Islamophobia, as you rightly say, by suggesting a Labour vote would be indicative of the country's moral compass, he himself is creating the implication that Islamophobia is less of an issue in positing that the Tories are in some way morally superior.
What are the Chief Rabbi's ties to Boris Johnson? I've seen he issued a public statement referring to him as a "friend" when he became PM, but I've seen on Twitter that he did the same when May became PM, his predecessor welcomed Blair in the same way too. I'm not sure there's too much to be read into that given it's played down that Corbyn used the same word to refer to Hamas. Is there anything else that links them?

Beyond that, I think we're in to degrees of severity - the timing is extraordinary, but is that because of political bias or because the problem has grown to the point he cannot remain silent? I'm lead to believe a large proportion of the Jewish community would normally support Labour, so that's a considerarion. Whilst the Tories attract racists too, do they handle the problem as ineffectively? The AS issue has somehow been allowed to snowball into a big issue, from within the party itself. The thing that's stood out to me is that with every highlighted incident, you don't have to look far to find Labour apologists trying to deflect from or discredit the claims. The reaction to his comments goes some way to proving the point.

User avatar
RoverthePennines
Regular international
Posts: 1377
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:48 pm
Location: Göteborg
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by RoverthePennines » Fri Nov 29, 2019 1:12 pm

Rover the Top wrote:
Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:52 pm
What are the Chief Rabbi's ties to Boris Johnson? I've seen he issued a public statement referring to him as a "friend" when he became PM, but I've seen on Twitter that he did the same when May became PM, his predecessor welcomed Blair in the same way too. I'm not sure there's too much to be read into that given it's played down that Corbyn used the same word to refer to Hamas. Is there anything else that links them?

Beyond that, I think we're in to degrees of severity - the timing is extraordinary, but is that because of political bias or because the problem has grown to the point he cannot remain silent? I'm lead to believe a large proportion of the Jewish community would normally support Labour, so that's a considerarion. Whilst the Tories attract racists too, do they handle the problem as ineffectively? The AS issue has somehow been allowed to snowball into a big issue, from within the party itself. The thing that's stood out to me is that with every highlighted incident, you don't have to look far to find Labour apologists trying to deflect from or discredit the claims. The reaction to his comments goes some way to proving the point.
The quote regarding friendship was what I was referring to, and had not considered it against Corbyn/ Hamas, or known about regarding May and Blair, so I have operated on a presumption that admittedly weakens a lot of what I've said.

I agree in regards to degrees of severity. My view is that to a person of moderate and reasonable standing, there are accusations, from top to bottom, that there are morally reprehensible behaviours and attitudes in both the Labour and Tory parties (and Ann Widdecombe). Sadly it threatens to overshadow the actual policies in place.

We're at a point where if one is determined to support either party, it almost impossible to use a narrative of discrimination to differ between the two. But instead of then using policy and manifesto separate them, as well as the rest of the candidates, the current climate of one-upmanship and outrage is destabilising a critical election period. What is worse is that it is a process the media has bought into, both left and right, and it results in this distasteful and unproductive question of who/ what is worse - to which there is no palatable answer.

Post Reply