Post by stevedtrm on May 3, 2016 17:01:05 GMT
The following statements are not positions i currently advocate, but positions i seek to confirm are permissable to advocate in the Labour party at this current time.
The censorious, hysterical, reactionary and exlcusionary behaviour of many senior party figures such as MPs surrounding these issues mean that i must seek permission to even suggest a position before discussing it at meetings.
I would like to put them to a vote at BLP, CLP and momentum meetings:-
1) No diagnostic evidence that these allegations of "NAZI apologism", "anti semitism" and "racism" as represented by The telegraph, John Mann, and others is visible in the mainstream accounts of what was said.
2) They also depend on a lack of clarity when it comes to discerning what racism is.
3) They also depend on a failure to distinguish racist anti-Jewish sentiment from religious criticisms or historical discussions.
4) They also depend on a complete lack of due process inside the Labour party for dealing with the semantics of unauthorised statements made by members and representatives of the Labour party.
5) An attempt to generate outrage at misrepresentations of Corbyn supporter's positions.
6) an attempt to fake outrage
7) an attempt to censor legitimiate intellectual inquiry and comparisons into Israeli government crimes with other prominent criminals.
8) Designed to destabilise Jeremy's leadership of the labour party
9) Designed to reduce Jeremy's support in the NEC
10) cryptofascist deceptions of the public mind.
11) There is also the significant risk that such claims are also designed to identify human rights campaigners objecting in the Labour party so that they can be expelled to clear the way for pro war members, pro war campaigners and pro-war candiates both on the NEC and at the PLP.
12) The recent media storm was an attempt to create outrage over a problem that is so small it is difficult to detect inside the Labour party by the vast majority of normal members.
===
A momentum representative from Manchester central said this:-
"pretending what Ken" (Livingstone) "said wasn't antisemitic ... is ... useless and untrue."
13) No evidence is or has been presented in the major national newspaperss to demonstrate that Ken said anything antisemitic.
The same momentum representative said:- "that the left doesnt have a problem with antsemitism is also useless and untrue."
14) Without explicitly stating it, this insinuates that antisemitism is not only a problem, but a significant problem before researching, estimating, judging or stating its scale.
15) This therefore amounts to prejudice.
===
The same representative said:- "If we recognise that we live in a structurally racist society then we cant just wish these problems away or assume that the left cant be guilty of them."
16) THis is an attack on a straw man argument, by which i mean a position so absurdly weak that noone would ever hold it, relating to a far wider problems than antisemitism including, for example, anti-ethnic racism in the police force.
The same representative said:- "Being criticial of the actions of the occuption isnt antisemitic,"... (An obvious statement) “but the way that large chunks of the left mistake a criticism of the israeli state for criticism of israelis and jewish people is antisemitic."
17) This asserts a fact before confirming or measuring to see if it is true. This is therefore an unsubstantiated, unmeasured and therefore prejudiced statement.
===
"It also is antisemitic to invoke Nazism to discuss Zionism."
18) No argument is presented to support this assertion.
The Guardian reported an interview with Livingstone:-
Feltz:
"She [Naz Shah] talked about relocating Israel to America.
She talked about what Hitler did being legal. And she talked about the Jews rallying.
And she used the words Jews, not Israelis or Israel.
You didn’t find that to be antisemitic?"
Livingstone: "No. It’s completely over the top [but] it’s not antisemitic.
Let’s remember, when Hitler won his election in 1932 his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism."
19) The guardian transcript demonstrates that in this case, Ken was in fact responding to questions put to him about Hitler and relocation. Not invoking Hitler or Nazism in an irrelevant or malignant context or attempt to misrepresent Judaism or Zionism.
===
the same Momentum representative said:- "Denying examples and experiences of anti semitism gets us nowhere."
20) While in itself is true, this statement is constructed in such a way that it a reasonable person would accept that it could insinuate that false claims of antisemitism do not exist before attempting to find them and once again therefore, this statement amounts could generate suspicion of prejudice.
"If we beleive the labour party is a vehicle for social justice, then we have to recognise racism and challenge and educate one another on it." (another obvious statement.) …"But that doesn’t mean that antisemitism isnt a problem."
21) This additional obvious pleasantry designed to make other statements seem more reasonable and again is something a reasonable person would interpret to potentially insinuate that antisemtitism not only a problem, but a critical or significant problem, while ignoring the necessity to establish this through research. And once again, therefore, amounts to prejudice.
===
A different Manchester representative said:-
"you are more shocked at one of our own being attacked vs massive harm to the party."
22) No evidence of massive harm to the Labour party has been presented until the illegitimate suspension of an NEC member in good standing and subsequent intimidatory effect occurred.
===
23) There is also no argument presented that even if someone does use Hitler and the Holocaust as a comparison with Israeli or Jewish society, this is a invalid intellectual excercise even when the comparison is carried out without illegitimate prejudice. Norman Finklestein a prominent Jewish pro palestinian activist and son of holocaust surivors advocates comparisons with Nazi crimes are made regularly. Only by careful, diligent comparison can critical distinctions be made.
24) "large chunks of the left mistake a criticism of the israeli state for criticism of israelis and jewish people is antisemitic." if we regard large chunks to mean
a) 50%
b) 30%
c) 20%,
d) 10 %
e) 5 %
f) 2%
g) 1%
h) 0.5%
i) 0.1%
i) members do not agree that labour has enough of a problem with antisemitism to be regarded as properly proven,
ii) significant and
iii) sufficiently important that we should dedicate even one hundredth of the resources we dedicate to it compared to the amount of resources we should dedicate to preventing unnecessary wars, which have recently killed millions of people.
25) it is unreasonable for momentum branches, staff or leadership anywhere to have representatives or delegates so easily moved and deceived by unsubstantiated right wing media manipulations.
26) that by excluding normal labour and momentum memebers from the momentum Loomio dicussion groups, these narratives from supposed representatives are permitted to go without scrutiny or rebuttal and that this secrecy should be terminated.
27) this media storm should henceforth be referred to as the "exaggerated antsemitism smears" in future discussions.
28) that Ken Livingstone should, in the absence of any further evidence than the interviews widely available in the Telegraph, Independent and Guardian, be acquitted explicltly of antisemitic beleifs, statements and behaviour, reinstantiated as a full member of Labour and active participating member of the Labour NEC.
29) that there is an emerging problem regarding people feeling they have to self censor because of the risk of being falsely accused of antisemitism now.
We need to agree a common set of statements and processes, in momentum locally, regionally, nationally AND in Labour that provide:-
30) A recognition that the word "anti-semite" is misleading in political arena since it since the way the word is constructed is such that it would naturally be assumed to mean people who are opposed to all semites, both Arab and Jewish or against members of a religious faith or doctrine, which is the modern use of the term.
31) An affirmation that the replacement of the word “anti-Semitism” with the phrase “anti Jewish racism” in most contexts is legitimate since that is normally what is actually meant to be communicated by those making allegations of anti-Semitism. Anti-Jewish racism here refers to prejudice or discrimination based upon physical characteristics Jews are perceived to possess by the alleged anti-Jewish racist.
===
32) A clear, unambiguous definition of
PREJUDICE:- Only
32-1) irrational,
or
32-2) negligent
32-3) Assertions of Meaning
Or
32-4) Behaviour
Qualify as prejudice.
It is therefore implied that since almost every specific word in English has a wide variety of definitions and ambiguity, no one word is proof of prejudice.
Examples:-
“nigger” is an example of a word that, when spoken in some circumstances, is a racist perjorative, but in others, is a friendly colloquialism. It is not to be regarded, alone as proof of racist intent.
“Zio” is an example of a word that, when spoken in some circumstances, is spoken to imply a racist perjorative, but in others are mere abbreviations of the usual, fuller word or phrase “Zionist”. Because of the ambiguity of meaning, the word alone is not enough to be accepted as proof of racist meaning or intent.
33) A clear, unambiguous definition of
RACE:-
A RACE IS A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS WITH SPECIFIC INHERITED PHYSICAL FEATURES THAT IS NOT ALSO A SPECIES. Only physical phenotypical features that a person is born with.
35) A clear, unambiguous definition of
DISCRIMINATION:-
BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS A PERSON OR GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT RESULTS IN LOSS, GAIN, RISK OF LOSS OR RISK OF GAIN.
34) A clear, unambiguous definition of
RACISM:-
illegitimate prejudices or discrimination against people of a particular race only because of their race or perceived race.
35) EXCLUSIONS:- INVOLUNTARY IGNORANCE
Involuntary ignorance is neither irrational nor negligent.
Prejudice is not the same thing as opposition to, negative sentiment, expectations, experience or legitimate criticism of a religion or race.
For example, a sex-traffiking victim who has been raped by many men may suffer disgust or anxiety when men are present, irrespective of these different men’s propensity to rape and this sense of repugnance or fear is not generally known as sexism, because the prejudice is rational given that person’s limited experience and knowledge.
Therefore, someone who saw their family murdered by Muslim extremists inspired to murder by their faith may, quite rationally, have fear of Muslims based simply on their limited experience and knowledge. This would also apply if the murderous extremists had been Jewish.
Many people do not have access to technology, education, money, academic affiliation and time that permit them to make a reasonable study of the scientific literature of the behaviour of the academic literature that would permit them to understand the group they have negative experiences of.
In such a state of absence of verifiable quality information and a world where media reports cannot be trusted and in fact are frequently designed to deceive, it is unreasonable to expect people with limited experience to know that their experience of a particular race or religion is not how all members of that race or religion necessarily behave. Individual experiences and access to and awareness of scientific data and education .necessarily alter a persons reasonable expectations.
===
36) A clear, unambiguous EXCLUSION FROM RACISM:- RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION:-
Religions differ qualitatively from races because physical features are inherited and almost always permanent and involuntary parts of a human being. A religion, on the other hand, is a belief founded in faith or religious doctrine which a person has chosen voluntarily to subscribe to, even under a determinist view of the world. Prejudice toward those of a religious faith, while potentially offensive, divisive, unlpleasant or even dangerous, is not racism.
===
37) A PRECISE, DIAGNOSTIC, DISCIPLINARY DEFINITION OF:-
ANTISEMITISM
ANTISEMITISM IS RACISM DIRECTED SOLELY AT PEOPLE ON THE BASIS THAT THEY ARE PRECEIVED TO BE PHYCIALLY SIMILAR TO SEMITIC ANCESTORS.
===
38) ANTI RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION:-
Religions come in various forms and can in themselves inspire dangerous extremes. Most of the major religions have engaged in violent coercion or genocides and some of this still occurs today Most of the major religions assert extreme punishments or death sentences for transgressors of their codes of conducts. It is therefore understandable that religious moderates and non-religious people might fear or worry about the intentions of religious people.
However, the vast majority of religious people are peaceful and prejudice can occur here too. Prejudiced religious discrimination is unacceptable in modern society and modern political parties.
===
39) Affirmation that those with speech that is found to have qualified as racist sentiment or behaviour that qualifies as racist behaviour are to be expelled permanently from the Labour party.
40) Affirmation that those who have spoken in a way that qualifies as expressing non-violent and reasonable sentiment or peaceful criticism of a religion or religious doctrine or are not to be suspended expelled from the Labour party.
41) Affirmation that Judaism is commonly understood to be a religion. Not a race. to
42) Semantic methods of distinguishing racism against semites from other sentiments and criticisms found in the Labour party.
43) Research into racism specifically against semites as a whole and its level of occurence in the Labour party.
===
44) Semantic qualifications that identify anti Jewish sentiment within anti-Zionist and anti-Israel sentiment, and therefore validate evidence of alleged anti Jewish sentiment in a due process
45) semantic methods of identifying separating out anti jewish racism from the non racist anti jewish, or wider anti-religious sentiment. (an atheist allowed to have anti-jewish sentiment on the same grounds as he has anti Christian sentiment)
===
46) Affirmation that comparisons are intellectual excercises of thought valid both for largely dissimilar groups or characteristics or qualifiers and largely similar groups or characteristics or qualifiers. (a dolphin has some characteristics in common with a giraffe, but that a comparison exists doesn't imply anyone would regard them as broadly similar in the same way as NAZIs and members of the Jewish faith or NAZIs and Zionists or NAZIs and members of any scientifically discernable Jewish race)
47) An affirmation that most of the media regarding anti-Semitism surrounds alleged “offense” caused to unnamed individuals by arguments or assertions that have not been demonstrated to be false, rather than actual verified evidence of anti-semitism.
48) An assertion that Labour should use the above terms of reference to process expeditiously all of the allegations against any member suspended on the grounds of criticism of Judaism of any form, Zionism of any form, and Israel.
49) An assertion that to take months rather than weeks to process investigations is an undue and unjust delay in providing judgement.
50) An assertion that without prima facia case evidence of an breach of the rules presented to the suspended member under investigation by email and letter, due process has not been served and there is a risk that people will be victimized by media speculation and attacks.
51) An assertion that because of the impact of Labour NEC members and PLP Labour members, these cases must be dealt with before other cases.
52) Human rights activists intent in supporting social justice in the Labour party currently have no confidence that the party will protect them from spurious political claims designed to reduce Labour opposition to genocide, oppressive poverty, occupation and other atrocities in Palestine and Israel.
53) Labour, and all groups affiliated with Labour therefore need to urgently agree the above or a new a common set of statements and processes locally, regionally, nationally that provide some important methods and principles for dealing with allegations in Labour.
These positions are alleged, by the party voting on them to be (record vote as appropriate):-
A) SUFFICENTLY URGENT THAT THEY SHOULD BE ENDORSED BY THE PARTY THROUGH AN NEC MOTION THIS YEAR
B) SUFFICIENTLY URGENT THAT THEY SHOULD BE ENDORSED BY THE PARTY AT CONFERENCE NEXT YEAR
C) CORRECT AND SUFFICIENTLY URGENT THAT THEY SHOULD BE ENDORSED BY INDIVIDUAL MOMENTUM BRANCHES IMMEDIATELY AND MOMENTUM NATIONALLY
D) CORRECT SUFFICIENTLY URGENT THAT THEY SHOULD BE ENDORSED BY INDIVIDUAL MOMENTUM BRANCHES IMMEDIATELY
E) CORRECT
F) INCORRECT
G) INCORRECT AND UNWITTINGLY ANTISEMITIC
H) INCORRECT AND OVERTLY ANTISEMITIC
I) INCORRECT AND REASON TO SUSPECT THE ADVOCATE OF THE POSITION OF CONCIOUS COVERT ANTISEMITISM.
The censorious, hysterical, reactionary and exlcusionary behaviour of many senior party figures such as MPs surrounding these issues mean that i must seek permission to even suggest a position before discussing it at meetings.
I would like to put them to a vote at BLP, CLP and momentum meetings:-
1) No diagnostic evidence that these allegations of "NAZI apologism", "anti semitism" and "racism" as represented by The telegraph, John Mann, and others is visible in the mainstream accounts of what was said.
2) They also depend on a lack of clarity when it comes to discerning what racism is.
3) They also depend on a failure to distinguish racist anti-Jewish sentiment from religious criticisms or historical discussions.
4) They also depend on a complete lack of due process inside the Labour party for dealing with the semantics of unauthorised statements made by members and representatives of the Labour party.
5) An attempt to generate outrage at misrepresentations of Corbyn supporter's positions.
6) an attempt to fake outrage
7) an attempt to censor legitimiate intellectual inquiry and comparisons into Israeli government crimes with other prominent criminals.
8) Designed to destabilise Jeremy's leadership of the labour party
9) Designed to reduce Jeremy's support in the NEC
10) cryptofascist deceptions of the public mind.
11) There is also the significant risk that such claims are also designed to identify human rights campaigners objecting in the Labour party so that they can be expelled to clear the way for pro war members, pro war campaigners and pro-war candiates both on the NEC and at the PLP.
12) The recent media storm was an attempt to create outrage over a problem that is so small it is difficult to detect inside the Labour party by the vast majority of normal members.
===
A momentum representative from Manchester central said this:-
"pretending what Ken" (Livingstone) "said wasn't antisemitic ... is ... useless and untrue."
13) No evidence is or has been presented in the major national newspaperss to demonstrate that Ken said anything antisemitic.
The same momentum representative said:- "that the left doesnt have a problem with antsemitism is also useless and untrue."
14) Without explicitly stating it, this insinuates that antisemitism is not only a problem, but a significant problem before researching, estimating, judging or stating its scale.
15) This therefore amounts to prejudice.
===
The same representative said:- "If we recognise that we live in a structurally racist society then we cant just wish these problems away or assume that the left cant be guilty of them."
16) THis is an attack on a straw man argument, by which i mean a position so absurdly weak that noone would ever hold it, relating to a far wider problems than antisemitism including, for example, anti-ethnic racism in the police force.
The same representative said:- "Being criticial of the actions of the occuption isnt antisemitic,"... (An obvious statement) “but the way that large chunks of the left mistake a criticism of the israeli state for criticism of israelis and jewish people is antisemitic."
17) This asserts a fact before confirming or measuring to see if it is true. This is therefore an unsubstantiated, unmeasured and therefore prejudiced statement.
===
"It also is antisemitic to invoke Nazism to discuss Zionism."
18) No argument is presented to support this assertion.
The Guardian reported an interview with Livingstone:-
Feltz:
"She [Naz Shah] talked about relocating Israel to America.
She talked about what Hitler did being legal. And she talked about the Jews rallying.
And she used the words Jews, not Israelis or Israel.
You didn’t find that to be antisemitic?"
Livingstone: "No. It’s completely over the top [but] it’s not antisemitic.
Let’s remember, when Hitler won his election in 1932 his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism."
19) The guardian transcript demonstrates that in this case, Ken was in fact responding to questions put to him about Hitler and relocation. Not invoking Hitler or Nazism in an irrelevant or malignant context or attempt to misrepresent Judaism or Zionism.
===
the same Momentum representative said:- "Denying examples and experiences of anti semitism gets us nowhere."
20) While in itself is true, this statement is constructed in such a way that it a reasonable person would accept that it could insinuate that false claims of antisemitism do not exist before attempting to find them and once again therefore, this statement amounts could generate suspicion of prejudice.
"If we beleive the labour party is a vehicle for social justice, then we have to recognise racism and challenge and educate one another on it." (another obvious statement.) …"But that doesn’t mean that antisemitism isnt a problem."
21) This additional obvious pleasantry designed to make other statements seem more reasonable and again is something a reasonable person would interpret to potentially insinuate that antisemtitism not only a problem, but a critical or significant problem, while ignoring the necessity to establish this through research. And once again, therefore, amounts to prejudice.
===
A different Manchester representative said:-
"you are more shocked at one of our own being attacked vs massive harm to the party."
22) No evidence of massive harm to the Labour party has been presented until the illegitimate suspension of an NEC member in good standing and subsequent intimidatory effect occurred.
===
23) There is also no argument presented that even if someone does use Hitler and the Holocaust as a comparison with Israeli or Jewish society, this is a invalid intellectual excercise even when the comparison is carried out without illegitimate prejudice. Norman Finklestein a prominent Jewish pro palestinian activist and son of holocaust surivors advocates comparisons with Nazi crimes are made regularly. Only by careful, diligent comparison can critical distinctions be made.
24) "large chunks of the left mistake a criticism of the israeli state for criticism of israelis and jewish people is antisemitic." if we regard large chunks to mean
a) 50%
b) 30%
c) 20%,
d) 10 %
e) 5 %
f) 2%
g) 1%
h) 0.5%
i) 0.1%
i) members do not agree that labour has enough of a problem with antisemitism to be regarded as properly proven,
ii) significant and
iii) sufficiently important that we should dedicate even one hundredth of the resources we dedicate to it compared to the amount of resources we should dedicate to preventing unnecessary wars, which have recently killed millions of people.
25) it is unreasonable for momentum branches, staff or leadership anywhere to have representatives or delegates so easily moved and deceived by unsubstantiated right wing media manipulations.
26) that by excluding normal labour and momentum memebers from the momentum Loomio dicussion groups, these narratives from supposed representatives are permitted to go without scrutiny or rebuttal and that this secrecy should be terminated.
27) this media storm should henceforth be referred to as the "exaggerated antsemitism smears" in future discussions.
28) that Ken Livingstone should, in the absence of any further evidence than the interviews widely available in the Telegraph, Independent and Guardian, be acquitted explicltly of antisemitic beleifs, statements and behaviour, reinstantiated as a full member of Labour and active participating member of the Labour NEC.
29) that there is an emerging problem regarding people feeling they have to self censor because of the risk of being falsely accused of antisemitism now.
We need to agree a common set of statements and processes, in momentum locally, regionally, nationally AND in Labour that provide:-
30) A recognition that the word "anti-semite" is misleading in political arena since it since the way the word is constructed is such that it would naturally be assumed to mean people who are opposed to all semites, both Arab and Jewish or against members of a religious faith or doctrine, which is the modern use of the term.
31) An affirmation that the replacement of the word “anti-Semitism” with the phrase “anti Jewish racism” in most contexts is legitimate since that is normally what is actually meant to be communicated by those making allegations of anti-Semitism. Anti-Jewish racism here refers to prejudice or discrimination based upon physical characteristics Jews are perceived to possess by the alleged anti-Jewish racist.
===
32) A clear, unambiguous definition of
PREJUDICE:- Only
32-1) irrational,
or
32-2) negligent
32-3) Assertions of Meaning
Or
32-4) Behaviour
Qualify as prejudice.
It is therefore implied that since almost every specific word in English has a wide variety of definitions and ambiguity, no one word is proof of prejudice.
Examples:-
“nigger” is an example of a word that, when spoken in some circumstances, is a racist perjorative, but in others, is a friendly colloquialism. It is not to be regarded, alone as proof of racist intent.
“Zio” is an example of a word that, when spoken in some circumstances, is spoken to imply a racist perjorative, but in others are mere abbreviations of the usual, fuller word or phrase “Zionist”. Because of the ambiguity of meaning, the word alone is not enough to be accepted as proof of racist meaning or intent.
33) A clear, unambiguous definition of
RACE:-
A RACE IS A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS WITH SPECIFIC INHERITED PHYSICAL FEATURES THAT IS NOT ALSO A SPECIES. Only physical phenotypical features that a person is born with.
35) A clear, unambiguous definition of
DISCRIMINATION:-
BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS A PERSON OR GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT RESULTS IN LOSS, GAIN, RISK OF LOSS OR RISK OF GAIN.
34) A clear, unambiguous definition of
RACISM:-
illegitimate prejudices or discrimination against people of a particular race only because of their race or perceived race.
35) EXCLUSIONS:- INVOLUNTARY IGNORANCE
Involuntary ignorance is neither irrational nor negligent.
Prejudice is not the same thing as opposition to, negative sentiment, expectations, experience or legitimate criticism of a religion or race.
For example, a sex-traffiking victim who has been raped by many men may suffer disgust or anxiety when men are present, irrespective of these different men’s propensity to rape and this sense of repugnance or fear is not generally known as sexism, because the prejudice is rational given that person’s limited experience and knowledge.
Therefore, someone who saw their family murdered by Muslim extremists inspired to murder by their faith may, quite rationally, have fear of Muslims based simply on their limited experience and knowledge. This would also apply if the murderous extremists had been Jewish.
Many people do not have access to technology, education, money, academic affiliation and time that permit them to make a reasonable study of the scientific literature of the behaviour of the academic literature that would permit them to understand the group they have negative experiences of.
In such a state of absence of verifiable quality information and a world where media reports cannot be trusted and in fact are frequently designed to deceive, it is unreasonable to expect people with limited experience to know that their experience of a particular race or religion is not how all members of that race or religion necessarily behave. Individual experiences and access to and awareness of scientific data and education .necessarily alter a persons reasonable expectations.
===
36) A clear, unambiguous EXCLUSION FROM RACISM:- RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION:-
Religions differ qualitatively from races because physical features are inherited and almost always permanent and involuntary parts of a human being. A religion, on the other hand, is a belief founded in faith or religious doctrine which a person has chosen voluntarily to subscribe to, even under a determinist view of the world. Prejudice toward those of a religious faith, while potentially offensive, divisive, unlpleasant or even dangerous, is not racism.
===
37) A PRECISE, DIAGNOSTIC, DISCIPLINARY DEFINITION OF:-
ANTISEMITISM
ANTISEMITISM IS RACISM DIRECTED SOLELY AT PEOPLE ON THE BASIS THAT THEY ARE PRECEIVED TO BE PHYCIALLY SIMILAR TO SEMITIC ANCESTORS.
===
38) ANTI RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION:-
Religions come in various forms and can in themselves inspire dangerous extremes. Most of the major religions have engaged in violent coercion or genocides and some of this still occurs today Most of the major religions assert extreme punishments or death sentences for transgressors of their codes of conducts. It is therefore understandable that religious moderates and non-religious people might fear or worry about the intentions of religious people.
However, the vast majority of religious people are peaceful and prejudice can occur here too. Prejudiced religious discrimination is unacceptable in modern society and modern political parties.
===
39) Affirmation that those with speech that is found to have qualified as racist sentiment or behaviour that qualifies as racist behaviour are to be expelled permanently from the Labour party.
40) Affirmation that those who have spoken in a way that qualifies as expressing non-violent and reasonable sentiment or peaceful criticism of a religion or religious doctrine or are not to be suspended expelled from the Labour party.
41) Affirmation that Judaism is commonly understood to be a religion. Not a race. to
42) Semantic methods of distinguishing racism against semites from other sentiments and criticisms found in the Labour party.
43) Research into racism specifically against semites as a whole and its level of occurence in the Labour party.
===
44) Semantic qualifications that identify anti Jewish sentiment within anti-Zionist and anti-Israel sentiment, and therefore validate evidence of alleged anti Jewish sentiment in a due process
45) semantic methods of identifying separating out anti jewish racism from the non racist anti jewish, or wider anti-religious sentiment. (an atheist allowed to have anti-jewish sentiment on the same grounds as he has anti Christian sentiment)
===
46) Affirmation that comparisons are intellectual excercises of thought valid both for largely dissimilar groups or characteristics or qualifiers and largely similar groups or characteristics or qualifiers. (a dolphin has some characteristics in common with a giraffe, but that a comparison exists doesn't imply anyone would regard them as broadly similar in the same way as NAZIs and members of the Jewish faith or NAZIs and Zionists or NAZIs and members of any scientifically discernable Jewish race)
47) An affirmation that most of the media regarding anti-Semitism surrounds alleged “offense” caused to unnamed individuals by arguments or assertions that have not been demonstrated to be false, rather than actual verified evidence of anti-semitism.
48) An assertion that Labour should use the above terms of reference to process expeditiously all of the allegations against any member suspended on the grounds of criticism of Judaism of any form, Zionism of any form, and Israel.
49) An assertion that to take months rather than weeks to process investigations is an undue and unjust delay in providing judgement.
50) An assertion that without prima facia case evidence of an breach of the rules presented to the suspended member under investigation by email and letter, due process has not been served and there is a risk that people will be victimized by media speculation and attacks.
51) An assertion that because of the impact of Labour NEC members and PLP Labour members, these cases must be dealt with before other cases.
52) Human rights activists intent in supporting social justice in the Labour party currently have no confidence that the party will protect them from spurious political claims designed to reduce Labour opposition to genocide, oppressive poverty, occupation and other atrocities in Palestine and Israel.
53) Labour, and all groups affiliated with Labour therefore need to urgently agree the above or a new a common set of statements and processes locally, regionally, nationally that provide some important methods and principles for dealing with allegations in Labour.
These positions are alleged, by the party voting on them to be (record vote as appropriate):-
A) SUFFICENTLY URGENT THAT THEY SHOULD BE ENDORSED BY THE PARTY THROUGH AN NEC MOTION THIS YEAR
B) SUFFICIENTLY URGENT THAT THEY SHOULD BE ENDORSED BY THE PARTY AT CONFERENCE NEXT YEAR
C) CORRECT AND SUFFICIENTLY URGENT THAT THEY SHOULD BE ENDORSED BY INDIVIDUAL MOMENTUM BRANCHES IMMEDIATELY AND MOMENTUM NATIONALLY
D) CORRECT SUFFICIENTLY URGENT THAT THEY SHOULD BE ENDORSED BY INDIVIDUAL MOMENTUM BRANCHES IMMEDIATELY
E) CORRECT
F) INCORRECT
G) INCORRECT AND UNWITTINGLY ANTISEMITIC
H) INCORRECT AND OVERTLY ANTISEMITIC
I) INCORRECT AND REASON TO SUSPECT THE ADVOCATE OF THE POSITION OF CONCIOUS COVERT ANTISEMITISM.