I plunged into the depths of my soul and saw all the stuff that everyone else was kvetching about.
write a comment
I plunged into the depths of my soul and saw all the stuff that everyone else was kvetching about.
There is something very delicious about the Scottish National Party members who want independence from the United Kingdom but want to remain part of the European Union! They don't want to be dictated to from London, rather Brussels.
Recently I addressed a letter to the BBC about the slur against Jews made by it in a report on the conviction of Yishai Schlissel, by describing him as ‘Ultra-Orthodox. This is what was written:
“Dear Rabbi Levin
Thank you for contacting us regarding the BBC News website.
I understand you felt that it was unnecessary and offensive for the report entitled ‘Jerusalem Gay Pride: Ultra-Orthodox Jew convicted of murder over stabbing’ to state that Yishai Schlissel is an “ultra-Orthodox Jew”.
Whilst I appreciate your concerns, this report does not imply that the actions of Yishai Schlissel had any extensive support and it certainly does suggest that any Rabbis or ultra-Orthodox leaders advocate the use of violence against members of the LGBT community in Israel.
Yishai Schlissel was the author of a number of anti-gay pamphlets and attempted to justify his actions on religious grounds – for example, calling on Jews to “risk beatings or imprisonment” in order to stop the Jerusalem Gay Pride parade.
However, our previous reports on this particular incident have made abundantly clear the widespread condemnation right across Israeli society for his actions:
Nevertheless, I would like to assure you that we value your feedback. Please know all complaints are sent to senior management and news teams every morning and we’ve included your points in our overnight reports.
These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensure that your complaint has been seen quickly, by the right people. This helps inform their decisions about current and future reporting.
Thank you once again for getting in touch.
NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.”
Exactly as anticipated the letter fails to answer the substance of the complaint! Ah! What an excellent thing it is to have realistic expectations! The complaint is reduced to a critique of the offendee’s perspective: “I understand you felt that it was unnecessary and offensive for the report … to state that Yishai Schlissel is an “ultra-Orthodox Jew”.
Reduce your guilt by restricting the offence to the percipient’s sensitivity! The complaint was that the writer and editorial staff clearly felt that it was relevant for the readers to identify the religious persuasion of the convicted offender.
The next paragraph, the attempt to whitewash, may just contain a rather unfortunate Freudian slip: “, this report does not imply that the actions of Yishai Schlissel had any extensive support and it certainly does suggest that any Rabbis or ultra-Orthodox leaders advocate the use of violence against members of the LGBT community in Israel.” (Emphasis added)
The writer wants me to accept that there is no ‘extensive support’ fort the actions of Yishai Shlissel. This leaves open the suggestion that there may be some support. Where is this support? Where are the responsa from ultra-Orthodox Rabbis (or other Orthodox Rabbis) calling for, promoting or condoning the stabbing of anyone? Where in the Jewish Code of Law, the Talmud, The Torah itself is there any support for Yishai Shlissel as taught and understood for thousands of years?
The writer and the BBC miss the point of the complaint entirely! The perpetrator may have written pamphlets or even treatises or limericks for that matter. His own deluded and sick point of view cannot superimpose a religious justification onto his actions.
But more fundamentally the letter exposes the substance the complaint: “You shamelessly identify him as an 'Ultra-Orthodox Jew', as if this has something to do with the crime for which he was convicted. Your organisation would never identify any other religion even when large numbers of adherents of that religion commit atrocities in the name of that religion. In fact your organisation will go out of its way to point out that the suspect(s)/perpetrator(s) and their crimes/misdeeds/terror have nothing to do with the religion in whose name the suspect/perpetrator has claimed to act.” (Emphasis added)
The writer of the letter, the writer of the original headline and various other editors and whoevers remain of the conviction that the purported religious persuasion of the perpetrator is relevant to the offence.
On today’s BBC News web page a story about a death in a fight in Luton, where a local man has died the article ends: “A man has been arrested in connection with the incident and is being questioned by officers..”
It may well be that the BBC have no information about the religion of the arrested individual or access to his literary efforts.
Did the BBC report on Oscar Pistorius’s religion? Dr Shipman’s? The guy who was convicted for destroying Barings?
On 14 January 2015 the BBC website includes the following in its reporting on the Charlie Hebdo massacre:
“France is emerging from one of its worst security crises in decades after three days of attacks by gunmen brought bloodshed to the capital Paris and its surrounding areas. “
“Once inside, the men - now known to be brothers Cherif and Said Kouachi “
The report says, fairly, “Witnesses said they had heard the gunmen shouting "We have avenged the Prophet Muhammad" and "God is Great" in Arabic while calling out the names of the journalists.”
“French media say Cherif was a convicted Islamist who was jailed in 2008 and had long been known to police for militant activities.”
The BBC is very careful to point out that the BBC itself is not ascribing religious motivation to the attackers!
On 08 January reporting on how Parisians were taking to the streets the BBC says:
“Security has been stepped up across France in the wake of the attack, which is believed to have been carried out by Islamic militants.
Many French Muslims were among the demonstrators on the streets, keen to show solidarity with the victims and their families.”
The BBC distances the atrocity from the religion in whose name it was perpetrated. Headlines of “Gunmen” do not carry the same impact or implication as “Ultra-Orthodox” BBC, you are not heroes for doing the damage in your headlines. You know the impact of headlines, implications and associations.
It is abundantly clear that, either the BBC writer has ignored the main thrust of the complaint, or it can be argued that he and the BBC, having been afforded the opportunity to correct the inaccuracy chooses not to do so.
Your meaning BBC, very clearly, is that the attacker’s religious motivation makes his purported membership of a particular religious grouping relevant to his crime. Albeit said elsewhere he was misguided and deluded and not overly popular with the main stream of his particular lunatic fringe, his religious persuasion is relevant to you. Ultra-Orthodox Jews, BBC, believe, quite resolutely, in the Biblical Injunction of the Ten Commandments, not to commit murder.
If some nutter donned a black hat, tzitzit, a black kippa and said he was going to eat a pork sandwich in the middle of Trafalgar Square on Yom Kippur, would you, BBC, describe him as (a) Ultra Orthodox, (b) an apostate or (c) as a nutter?
She currently is suspended. She will willingly be sent to Labour-Coventry for re-education and then re-emerge as a jolly good fellow in the party of tolerance, human rights and all that is progressive who only say racist, sick things when incensed by Palestinian propaganda.
We should all be asking not what should the Labour Party be doing about anti-Semitism, but rather what is there about the Labour Party, and other Left leaning parties that expound tolerance, fairness, justice and all those purported values, and whose members weep on Holocaust Memorial Day, that makes anti-Semites feel so at home? All these emerging wood consuming anti-Semites have been part of Labour and the Left for a very long time. They have been side by side with the more Judeo-friendly leaders and ‘main-stream’ members in elections, legislative bodies and the political scene throughout the years of New Labour and Milliband. We are talking about them nowadays as if they are a sudden and new surprising phenomenon that recently burrowed into the parties of justice, democratic values, families and non-families of all modern varieties and have popped up with anti-Semitic cookies like an internet virus we got from downloading protest songs from a dodgy website. Some of these vociferous hate-mongering Loony-Lefty types may have protested some of the overtly Middle of the Road or Thatcherite stuff, like combatting terrorism, but they have been there, getting nominated, participating in conferences, campaigning and doing their part for a long time.
Now what attracts these naughty intruders who make injudicious comments paraphrasing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to parties like Labour are the very ideals that the Labour movement claims to represent, namely democracy, justice, fairness, tolerance, human rights, international law, peace, working families and equality (among others). In the eyes of the Left, the Jews, or the Zionists, just so happen to fit the definition of everything that is antithetical to democracy, justice, fairness, tolerance, human rights, international law, working families and equality (among others). A large portion of the world’s leaders, as voted for in the august chambers of the United Nations, deems Israel to be undemocratic. This is supported by many academics and truth seeking journalists, and being that these people are talented, clever and often with tenure at academic institutions well Israel is not just undemocratic but practises apartheid. You would have to say that much of Labour’s world view echoes that of the United Nations. Both rose to prominence with messages of hope, peace and progress in the wake of the Second World War.
Now it is posited by these democrats through their unchallengeable principles of faith that the Zionists and often the Jews act in very unfair ways. They yield undue influence through their ‘lobby’. Now this lobby mesmerises and captures control of the media and Western leaders, and even though these Western leaders spend a large amount of time accommodating the interests of countries like Saudi Arabia and lately Iran, they are mere stooges of Zionist interests. Quite how it is in the interests of Israel, Jews or Zionists to allow Iran to get all that money, trade and free reign on the nuclear program is not something that need bother anyone on the left. Nor should they be perplexed by any reporting on CNN, the BBC, the Guardian and numerous others that slams Israel, because everyone knows that all the media is controlled by the Zionists.
Zionists pervert and deny justice. They ‘extra-judicially’ shoot any innocent ‘protester’ who lobs missiles at ‘disputed’ territory. They curtail free movement of weapon carrying Palestinians, who only want what is theirs. Surely anyone who wants justice for the Palestinians should fight for justice for the Palestinians. And you cannot condemn the poor Palestinians for carrying out ‘extrajudicial’ acts against their ‘oppressors’, the Israeli occupiers deny them the opportunity to create a proper infrastructure. So if justice is your thing, well then, a lovely left wing Justice promoting party is the party for you.
Now of course we preach tolerance and we are sorry to have to say it but some of the things that some Jews do are just not that tolerant. The Orthodox are intolerant of the Reform. They are intolerant of the right of Jews who reject the notion that the Temple need play a part in Judaism having their own space at the western Wall. The Secular are intolerant of the religious. Oh yes and we all admit that Zionists through their intolerance got through and ruined things for that poor dupe from South America who got into trouble with Fifa for corruption. Of course opposing the notion of a Jewish state is not intolerance.
Human Rights. Israel leads the world in being condemned for human rights abuses. You won’t find any country or international organisation that is more routinely blamed for abuse of human rights, misogyny, apartheid, genocide and you-name-it-it’s-there than the Zionist entity. So clearly a party that promotes human rights is the party for any left leaning human rights advocate, and are in tune with such left leaning countries as Cuba, Venezuela and the progressive regimes of the Middle East who participate the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Of course the Zios are dreadful when it comes to international law. Of course there is nothing that Israel ever does that actually complies with international law. When Grotius wrote his De jure belli ac pacis libri tres (On the Law of War and Peace) he fully anticipated that Jews building homes in their now disputed ancestral homeland would be a full breach of international law as construed by the unbiased scholars that would subsequently be appointed by august international bodies to condemn Zionism.
As a lover of ‘working families’, (and of course non-working families who’ll vote for us) you will seek a party that identifies with the poor economically oppressed Palestinians that languish in Israeli prisons whilst their poor families have to make do with the handouts of thousands of dollars from Iran and others as compensation for the unjust imprisonment of those denied the martyrdom of 72 virgins through detention without execution. All those poor orphans and widows pensioned by Iran whilst their fathers and husbands endure the lurid life of the hereafter. And the lack of family life of the millions of refugees who still are imprisoned by Israeli intransigence, which somehow never managed to thwart the resettlement of Europe’s displaced millions after World war Two.
And not forgetting equality. You want a party that demands its leaders pay proper tax and are accountable. Any hint of tax avoidance and you can scream aloud how the right favour the rich over the poor. You will naturally look at the example of economic fairness where billions of pounds, euros and dollars of your and other western tax payers are duly expended. You will note the accountability and openness of the Palestinian leadership who instead of publicising their properly audited tax returns on twitter are more content to flaunt their wealth through their palatial mansions and open luxury whilst their oppressed brethren suffer the indignities of occupation. The nasty Conservatives run a campaign of austerity. The Palestinian leadership of Hamas allocate large resources to ending the occupation by building tunnels. They promote equality by encouraging women and children to engage in the struggle, either through martyrdom or through use as human shields. Is that not attractive?
So, what has the Labour Party been doing about Anti-Semitism for years?
When will people realise that political parties don’t actually stand for what they say they stand for? They stand for what they do.