Yes, it does.

https://antisemitism.uk/law/offences/

As we have constantly seen in this country, the protection of the state is the last thing any social group would wish to have.

While such protection does not create anti-semitism it will surely allow it to thrive.

Not necessarily. It depends of the context of the use of Jewish. There is no need for the word Jewish in the term Jewish banker unless one is trying to draw some extra contempt into the phrase. He is a banker said with venom is fine he is a Jewish banker said with the same venom is more questionable. Just as if one said he is a b*****d with venom but put black in front of it.

Under this proposed law Neturei Karta would be guilty of anti Semitism (anti Zionist and anti Israel).


http://www.nkusa.org/

Is that not a conclusion that is in the hands of the judge that is ruling? As far as I can see being anti Zionist and anti Israel does not mean anti semitic , much depends on context and on what is said and how.

The PM has a strong record of helping the Jewish community and her speech is the next logical step in her crusade.

Em, Jews were one of the victims of the Crusades

No. The anti Semitism definition is using the understanding that Zionism is the belief that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish homeland.

So this proposed law pretty much silences individuals who have a very different idea of Zionism; that of being a secular political ideology that has little to do with Judaism and not having a right to exist any more or less than any other nation. (the Neturei Karta stance in short)

Well, that's probably because those peoples "different" ideas are a pile of steaming anti Semitic bollocks, dressed up as a fake political ideology.

However from the links that is not what it says. It is a qualified view. Hating Israel becasue it is a Jewish state is the problem hating Israel because you dislike the political principles behind its creation is a bit different. Hating Zionism because it works for Jews is different from hating Zionism because of its divisiveness on religious lines.
I agree that it is to Israel's advantage, and Zionism's, to conflate the two issues just as many in Islam are trying to do.

Agreed. This is about stopping abuse being thrown at Jewish communities in the U.K. Interesting to read the responses on this thread though in some cases from people who usually speak out against abuse thrown at ethnic minorities.

It isn't necessary. What's necessary is treating the problem, not the symptom. Unfortunately that's beyond the ability of the garbage in Parliament, so instead we get more Blairite shitwittery.

Not always. So the example earlier of a 'Jewish Banker'. There's probably no need to prefix with 'Jewish' unless there's some specific reason that the banker has to be Jewish. But it should be legitimate to criticise Israeli banking secrecy given that's widely abused by dubious customers, as can Israel's non-extradition policies.

That's not anti-semitic, just an outcome of Israeli law, plus a large influx of dodgy money that's kept the Israeli police and courts busy since the '90s, ie Russian/East European criminals.

First do you not think this law will bring more criticism to jews and Israelis simply by making them a special case.
Secondly use your search engine and look up the Semitic lands and its people [you may get a surprise.

Of course it will.


As will any minority.

Fair enough; but I've never actually seen anyone make that distinction.

What usually happens is that someone will make an observation about Jewish bankers, or Rothschild bankers, or Zionist bankers, or numerous variations thereof. Or they might use the language of the holocaust, in an attempt to draw, shall we say "dubious" comparisons between the murder of 6 million Jews and the current status of the Palestinians.

This is anti Semitic.

When challenged, they will duck and dive and wind up referring to the type of minutiae to which you refer.

Incidentally, London is pretty much the biggest recipient of "dodgy" Russian money and I should know, having been involved in a good few pieces of litigation on point.

I think its rather sad that as a country, we're restricting access to justice to the masses, but inviting Oligarchs to spend their (not so) hard earned billions wrangling over who owns what oilfield, or whatever; I guess that's another thread...

I doubt it.. But that's politics for you, and 'semitic' has changed in meaning somewhat

This argument is truly bizarre.

There are Muslim sects kicking the merry you know what out of each other across the globe. For example, the BBC are leading today on government forces in Aleppo shooting 82 (presumably non governmental) people on sight.

Yet you want to focus on a few of my weird beard bretherin, who think prayer is an alternative to work, or the real world? They're harmless but hardly proof positive of whatever theory/snake oil you're selling...

I wish I could remember the name of the Israeli police commander who wrote a book about the.. 'challenges' caused by the '90s influx of seriously organised criminals, along with how that affected the political dynamic. Money has a nasty habit of greasing palms and buying influence though.

Are you saying that uttering the name of a bank would or might be discriminatory?

Yes; but that's not a problem restricted to Israel; there's quite enough of it right here in London.Most of the "buy to leave" properties here in London are funded by "dirty" foreign money.

I do find it disturbing that people blithely refer to this and similar issues as though its a uniquely Israeli problem, or has real or frankly any bearing to this field of debate.

The implication is often, "look, yet more evidence of those global and well known manipulators of money markets weaving their evil web".

And here's the nub.

I find it hard to conceive how references to "Rothschild Bankers" in the context of a debate about anti semitism could be taken by any sane person to be something other than evidence of, well, anti semitism.

Forgive me, but your posts read like those of a classic CT artist.

I wasn't talking in the context of an anti-semitism debate.

BIB....I think you're talking about yourself.

I see, they're another irrelevant pre-State of Israel anti-Zionist minority and only worthy of anti-semitic mockery and removal of their rights. Admirably proving the point you're trying and failing to argue against.
Does the same apply to other minorities who this draconian intervention will conveniently silence?

Clearly you know nothing about Ultra-Orthodox influence in the Israeli government - and calling them "weird beard" is anti-Semitic

No, you were just being anti semitic.

As for the BIB, I suggest you take a breath, mix with some ordinary folk and take a straw poll, followed by a long hard look in the mirror...