Anti-Semitism and Tommy Robinson = views

The views-per-page for some of my recent postings:

Depressing, isn't it?  Provide thoughtful and wise commentary on the mainstream of British politics and no-one notices.  Make a passing reference to Tommy DICKHEAD Robinson in a thread title and you get hundreds of views.  Write something about anti-Semitism and you get another tonne.

What is wrong with the interwebs?

Can't wait to see how this baitishly titled post fares.

Brecon and Radnor by-election

I'm glad to see the Lib Dems won.

I had a moment of terror yesterday thinking that the Conservatives might cling on, due to a combination of Johnson's elevation to the premiership, the apparent uselessness of the Lib Dem candidate (who had failed to be elected in other constituencies) and the fading of the Brexit Party.

But ...

• with the explicit support of the Greens and PC,
• with the tacit support of Labour,
• with the advantage of facing a candidate who had been recalled - by his own constituents - for corruption,
• a candidate, no less, who represented one of the most disliked governments in recent memory,
• a government, you'll recall, that had nailed its colours to decisively to the Brexit-or-Death mast,
• and with the Leave vote split between the Conservatives and the Brexit Party,
• and fighting a by-election in an area they have traditionally done well in,
• and with an experienced local candidate to represent them,

... shouldn't they have done a bit better?

(A bit of payback for all those deriding Labour for not doing better because yadahyadahyahdah.)

As for new Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson's proclamation that her party will not support a Labour Government - it is a bizarre move if they then expect Labour to co-operate and help them win target seats from the Tories.

Unless, of course, you view the Lib Dems as part of the 'Centrist' war against Corbyn. Then it makes perfect sense.

They'd rather see another Conservative government than offer any succor to the Labour Left.

Even when they aren't in coalition, they are still helping the Tories.

In other news, the latest Com Res poll brings grim tidings for the Lib Dems:

LAB: 30% (+3)
CON: 29% (+1)
LDEM: 16% (-3)
BREX: 15% (-1)
GRN: 5% (+1)

via @ComRes, 26 - 28 Jul
Chgs. w/ 25 Jul

After the giddy thrills of the local and Euro elections the the Lib-Dem and Brexit surge is receding and both main parties are gradually recovering to the semi-respectable terrain of the low to mid 30s.

Sadly, Lib Dems, the party is over. It was a good one, but you've got nothing to show for it other than a splitting head ache, a foul taste in your mouth and the vague memory of attempting to do a strip-tease, only to fall over as you tried to remove your trousers. You've woken up in a stranger's bed and it is time for you all to be sensible and pretend that none of this ever happened.

Anti-Semitic images considered: the 'facehugger' on the Statue of Liberty

An occasional series where I will ponder allegations of anti-Semitism directed at the British Labour Party and its members.

In this case, we are thinking about an allegedly anti-Semitic image shared by a Labour Party member. Its origins appear to be a far right site which revels in anti-Semitism. Rather than reproduce the image itself, I will link to it. For those not wanting to sully their browser, it shows the Statue of Liberty with one of the 'facehugger' aliens from Alien attached to it's face. The alien has a Star of David on its back.

The image was shared by a Labour Party member. It's origins appear to be a far right site which revels in anti-Semitism.

It has been described as anti-Semitic because the Star of David identifies the alien with Jews, and thus Jews with the alien. Anti-Semitic discourse regularly describes Jews as sub-human, alien and parasitical. The idea that Jews are corrupting their 'host' culture (just as the alien implants an embryo in the host) is very common. The reading here is that Jews are the enemies of freedom (hence the host is Lady Liberty).

BUT there are two factors that have to be taken into consideration. First, the Star of David is blue, associating it with the Israeli flag rather than Jews in general. This could change the message slightly - it is probably more about free speech and the perception that Israel is trying to stop criticism of it (ironically by claiming anti-Semitism at every opportunity!).

That's a 'legitimate' message, though I find the image abhorrent for the reasons outlined above. it is to crude and easily read as applying to all Jews rather than a political criticism of Israel.  It is far worse than the mural in that regard.

I think the mural was intended as a critique of capitalism that was too easily interpreted as anti-Semitic due to the crudity of its execution; whereas this image seems too much like it is an anti-Semitic dog whistle - an image that is essentially anti-Semitic but which is trying to give itself a veneer of acceptability which fools people into thinking it is not poisonous. The woman who re-posted it probably naively saw it as a legitimate criticism of Israel, but it is far more than that.   She should have known better.

Also, it is not clear if the woman who posted it knew it was from a far right site. These images slosh around the internet, are passed on from one person to another, or show up in Google searches and the provenance may not be clear.  On this aspect, I am willing to give the woman in question the benefit of the doubt in that regard.  Of course, if it could be proven she visited the site and was aware of the sort of place it was, that would be another matter.

The woman in question was suspended and investigated.  The investigation concluded the image depicted "a monster with the Star of David printed on it on the face of the Statue of Liberty suggesting that Jewish people control America.” and that, though distasteful "these are generally distasteful cartoons about the perceived relationship [between] Israel and the US." I think they were probably a bit generous in their interpretation there.  I think she was very thoughtless and foolish.

She was given a formal warning about her posting; hoepfully, she shows better sense in the future.

Another day, another load of old bollocks from the Guardian

It must be a day ending in Y because the Guardian - remember when it used to be a good paper1 - is running another spurious story about Corbyn's leadership being threatened over anti-Semitism.

The headline the Guardian runs is: "MPs tell Jeremy Corbyn: get a grip or lose a general election" and the main 'Gotcha' is a comment by Angela Rayner, speaking at a Fabian Society event:

The sense of crisis engulfing Labour deepened further last night when shadow education secretary Angela Rayner, a Jeremy Corbyn loyalist, broke cover to express her dismay at Labour’s handling of antisemitism. The shadow cabinet was “totally exasperated by the failure of our movement to be able to deal with this issue”, she said.  

 In an extraordinary outburst at a Fabian Society conference, Rayner said she was “absolutely embarrassed by what’s happened over the last few days and I’ve made my representations very clear. If that means setting up an independent system, then so be it... let’s just get on and do it.” 

Note the contrast.  The headline deliberately puts Corbyn in the frame, implying he is in someway responsible for the 'crisis.' (2)  Whereas Rayner doesn't mention him at all in the quoted passages.  In fact, the specifies "Movement," not Corbyn or the leadership team.

Later on, the story quotes Clive Lewis:

The Labour frontbencher Clive Lewis, who is on the left of the party, called on the leadership to “get a grip” before it was too late. With the Conservative party looking likely to elect a populist rightwinger, Boris Johnson, to replace Theresa May, the dangers and challenges were clear, Lewis said. 

“Now more than ever our democracy needs Her Majesty’s Opposition to do what it says on the tin and oppose and act as a counterbalance to what a significant portion of the electorate will consider as a likely dangerous lurch to the hard right,” said Lewis. 

“If Labour cannot perform this crucial function, then the danger for us as a party is that an increasing portion of the electorate will ask themselves: ‘If Labour won’t or can’t step up, then who will?’ The answer to this question may not be one we like very much. As such it really is time to get a grip and quick,” Lewis added.

Note again the lack of a specific mention of Corbyn or the leadership in general.  Surely, if he had specified Corbyn, the Guardian could have quoted him saying that?  But instead of actually presenting what Lewis and Rayner said failry, the Guardian framed these comments which seem to be aimed at the party as a whole, or perhaps - since the Guardian seems to think it is okay to make up whatever spin you like for a story - they mean Corbyn's critics within the party. 

So, another shoddy attempt by the Guardian to advance its Corbyn bashing narrative instead of just doing honest and straight-forward reporting.

1 - No, me neither.
2 - A crisis that largely exists in newspaper headlines such as the example here.  Even journalists must eat, and that is facilitated by making things sound much more exciting than they actually are. 

Chris Williamson's re-admission

So, some Labour MPs and peers have written Corbyn a letter complaining about the re-admission of loudmouth MP Chris Williamson, who had been suspended over allegations he made anti-Semitic comments.

Never mind the Guardian's typically biased headline that Corbyn is facing "Mounting pressure" over this (as opposed to the same old stuff from the same old sources).

This, from the letter to Corbyn, is truly bizarre:

It is clear to us that the Labour party’s disciplinary process remains mired by the appearance of political interference. This must stop. We need a truly independent process.

So, a "truly independent process" is one where an independent decision is made by the people who have scrutinised the case and are empowered to make that decision; and then it is overruled because some people don't like it?

 Williamson is a tool, but Watson et al are dearranged.

Islamaphobia in the Conservative Party

And now this:

EXC: The Conservative Muslim chief has been expelled from the Tory Muslim group. Mohammed Amin tells me he has been expelled following an intervention by CCHQ because he criticised the 'moral integrity' of Boris Johnson: https://t.co/5pkY2JR1C2

— Shehab Khan (@ShehabKhan) 21 June 2019

The Tories are having a really stink couple of days. Obviously, the prospect of a conservative win must be making a lot of bigots feel legitimised and safe to express their hate.

n.b. He hasn't actually been expelled from the Conservative Party (yet) but has been forced to stand down from his role as chairman of the Conservative Muslim Group, for the sin of criticising the Dear-Leader-in-Waiting.

It seems you can't question Johnson's moral character ... even though the police have just been round to see if his girlfriend was alright.

A bad couple of days for the Conservative Party

In - what, 48 hours? - a Tory MP assaults a female demonstrator, a Tory MP verbally abuses a female colleague via twitter, a Tory MP is recalled for corruption, and a Tory MP (and likely future PM) has the police turn up at their door at 2am because his girlfriend was screaming "Get off me!"

With regards the last instance, I'm trying to be fair and imagine circumstances where a woman screaming "Get off me!" at 2am in the morning is okay.

Nope, can't think of any.

The Conservative Party - home of corruption and toxic masculinity.