Derek Hatton

[JohnToo]

The Labour Party really doesn't need to be open to yet more accusations of anti-Semitism, and the one thing that any member can control is the precision of their communication, in order to reduce the opportunity for willful misinterpretation that will inevitably follow whenever possible.
Carelessly or deliberately, he put himself in the position where his words are open to that interpretation.

I cannot dispute the logic of what you say. But I can’t help feel that it leaves a bit of an unpleasant sense of acquiescing in bullies getting away with exercising censorship.

[Rutabaga]

He wasn't a party member when he tweeted. It seems the party wanted an excuse to go back on a decision that turned out to be unpopular, and trawled for one.

[LowlifeDes]

I cannot dispute the logic of what you say. But I can’t help feel that it leaves a bit of an unpleasant sense of acquiescing in bullies getting away with exercising censorship.

If is either that, or meet it head on and deal with it.

[Regulator]

If is either that, or meet it head on and deal with it.

Which is what the Labour Party is doing. The problem is that Labour is facing repeated orchestrated attacks that are intended to convey the impression that the party is doing nothing.

[Joan]

"Catholic people with any sense of humanity need to start speaking out publicly against the ruthless child abuse being carried out by the Vatican!"

Can I join the chorus failing to understand this? I am a ... cultural catholic and I have no problem with this statement - excepting the point that they need to address the child abuse happening closer, in their parishes and schools. The reason it was so rampant for so long is parents let the church handle it, and that often meant hushing it up and sending the priest on to a distant parish, where he would offend again. If they had reported it to the police, maybe they would have been stopped. The church used it's authority to silence the the victims, and it looks like Francis is doing the same.

I guess it's not a perfect analogy, because the Catholics being encouraged to speak out would be members of the organisation, but Jewish diaspora are mostly not members of the Israeli nation (though most have the right to move there if they chose)

[Iris]

repeated orchestrated attacks

In the context that might not have been the wisest thing to say.

[Iris]

I guess it's not a perfect analogy, because the Catholics being encouraged to speak out would be members of the organisation, but Jewish diaspora are mostly not members of the Israeli nation (though most have the right to move there if they chose)

I am not a Catholic, nor a Jew, nor a Muslim. If I say any of those things I am telling members of those groups, who have absolutely no influence on the groups I'm telling to do stuff, that it's their responsibility and not mine. And I am seeing them more as a member of a different group than a fellow human being. Which is unthinking prejudice at best.

I'd hope that any of us would speak out as members of the human race, whatever our creed or colour.

[JohnToo]

But Jews do have more influence on the state of Israel than I do. Catholics do have more influence on the pope than I do. I have more influence on the Anglican churches than a non-Anglican. I think there is an unavoidable extra responsibility that comes with membership (whether chosen or inherited or a bit of both) of such groups.

[The Real Ravenhurst]

I don't really know whether it's fair, or justified under da roolz, to exclude Hatton permanently (party rules are seriously boring), but it's not a hill I'd choose to die on, on account of him being an arse, and furthermore an arse that lots of people haven't forgiven for gambling with their jobs. His importance, unless he assumes high office within Labour (which I think is unlikely), is more totemic than anything else - he represents a dated dogmatism that is way out of step with the more consensual and pluralist inclinations of the 21st-century membership (@Iris might well snort at that, but I stand by it).

I do think the Tweet that was dredged up was shoddy, in the same way that calls for Muslims to distance themselves from Islamist terrorism are shoddy, and I don't agree with John that Jews necessarily have more influence on the Israeli state than others. Anti-Zionist (or even just liberal or humanitarian) Jews are frequently abused by hardcore Zionists in terms infinitely more offensive than anything the average pro-Palestine Labour activist could ever muster - I reckon it's easier to be critical of Israel if you're not Jewish. But then I don't believe in authoritarian purges of the membership, antisemitism paranoia, social media tone-policing and all that stuff, and I'm very sorry to see Formby, Lansman and co pursuing that kind of agenda.

Generally speaking I approve of the fact that the party is not the Jezocracy of the mainstream media imagination, but it's at times like this when the Labour party would be better off for being less attached to roolz and should be run more like a group ride, where Hatton just emails Jezza and Jezza replies 'I'm sorry, Degsy, it's nothing personal but you're a fucking liability and I don't need any more of your shit. Ask me again in five years.'

[Joan]

Note: This was a reply written to a post that is now deleted. The software stopped me posting with quotes of the deleted post. Cool!

I think it's close, but not exactly this. It's a nearly universal practice amongst anti-semites to use anti Zionist or anti Israel arguments. That means that if a gentile attacks Israel for any reason, they can plausibly defend themselves by accusing them of being antisemitic. That means it's hard for the gentile world to say anything against Israel. The only people that can speak out against Israel are other Jews, either in Israel or across the diaspora.

But if what Hatton wrote is - ahem - beyond the pale, then what can we do? We can't criticise Israel and we can't even ask any Jews to do so, because even asking is antisemitic.

Sigh. I don't have any answers. This is a tarantella, and I don't know the steps. Every time I read something about the holocaust like MS St Louis, or them meekly boarding the trains, I have renewed sympathy for their fuck-you-we-are-doing-whatever-it-takes attitude.

[JohnToo]

Sorry I deleted my post!

[Joan]

Sorry I deleted my post!

No! That's not a problem. The only reason I mentioned it is because none of us really knows how this software works, so I thought would share. I got a very opaque error message.

Your post triggered a thought, but I don't need your actual post to share it.

[Joan]

I am not a Catholic, nor a Jew, nor a Muslim. If I say any of those things I am telling members of those groups, who have absolutely no influence on the groups I'm telling to do stuff, that it's their responsibility and not mine. And I am seeing them more as a member of a different group than a fellow human being. Which is unthinking prejudice at best.

I'd hope that any of us would speak out as members of the human race, whatever our creed or colour.

My post above indicates why I think Jews have a higher duty to speak out, but your post has triggered a different thought...

A few year ago, when Pope Benedict was visiting this country, many members of the establishment protested, citing clergy sex abuse. While that was completely justified by the facts, I had a niggerling worry. This was exactly the same sort of attack the establishment has long made against Catholics. There is always something "Papist" to attack to cover you for a delocalised hatred of Catholics. Maybe that wasn't it, but if felt familiar. I was a little surprised to hear it coming from Stephen Fry: I had expected him to channel Wilde all his life, and he was a deathbed conversion.

I left the church because I decided it was all nonsense, but some years later regretted my decision, because some sexist bullshit from JPII made me want to leave all over again, but I was already out; plus there was no twitter, so I couldn't make a dramatic door slam in public.

I have many problems with the Catholic Church. Have I ever addressed them in public in a way that might make a change? No. I don't even know what that would look like. But would I accept advice from some proddy-dog (oops!**) on doing so? No. Because after 500 years of oppression, you don't get to tell me what to do.

As I said above, it's complicated.


**There was a popular playground rhyme:
Proddy dogs, Proddy dogs
<something that scans and rhymes with Proddy dogs. It was a long time ago>

[JohnToo]

No! That's not a problem. The only reason I mentioned it is because none of us really knows how this software works, so I thought would share. I got a very opaque error message.

Your post triggered a thought, but I don't need your actual post to share it.

I think I was apologising more generally for the LMF that led me to wimp out of letting my post stand.

[JohnToo]

My post above indicates why I think Jews have a higher duty to speak out, but your post has triggered a different thought...

A few year ago, when Pope Benedict was visiting this country, many members of the establishment protested, citing clergy sex abuse. While that was completely justified by the facts, I had a niggerling worry. This was exactly the same sort of attack the establishment has long made against Catholics. There is always something "Papist" to attack to cover you for a delocalised hatred of Catholics. Maybe that wasn't it, but if felt familiar. I was a little surprised to hear it coming from Stephen Fry: I had expected him to channel Wilde all his life, and he was a deathbed conversion.

I left the church because I decided it was all nonsense, but some years later regretted my decision, because some sexist bullshit from JPII made me want to leave all over again, but I was already out; plus there was no twitter, so I couldn't make a dramatic door slam in public.

I have many problems with the Catholic Church. Have I ever addressed them in public in a way that might make a change? No. I don't even know what that would look like. But would I accept advice from some proddy-dog (oops!**) on doing so? No. Because after 500 years of oppression, you don't get to tell me what to do.

As I said above, it's complicated.


**There was a popular playground rhyme:
Proddy dogs, Proddy dogs
<something that scans and rhymes with Proddy dogs. It was a long time ago>

I think the Roman cCatholic church is an interesting comparison with Judaism/Israel in that they both function simultaneously as the oppressor and the oppressed.