- Re: Corbyn can lead in the exposure of establishment psychosis Archived Message
Posted by George Brennan
on July 11, 2019, 1:26 pm, in reply to "Corbyn can lead in the exposure of establishment psychosis"
|
Should be shared and tweeted by all who can. Literally faultless, containing no flaws except possibly by omission. If you have a second edition I hope you will find room to make one point not everywhere emphasised. It vexes me. The witch-hunters have always lacked evidence, of course, and they have never needed it because Marr and Viner have excluded evidence-based discourse from their environment. What is new is the brazen claim that they have need of evidence because only an insensitive witch would ask to see it. Peter Willsman’s basic crime, remember, was to simply demand to see evidence that AS was widespread and institutional in the Party etc. As a member of the NEC it had not been shown to him. Now Owen Jones and Lansman have candidly tweeted saying there is no burden on them to demonstrate evidence wrongdoing by Williamson. Rather the burden is on Williamson to show immediate signs of “contrition” for wrongdoing. Billy Bragg following them sets out his case for appeasing insatiable “sensitivities” in a terrifying sequence of non-sequiturs. https://twitter.com/billybragg/status/1146796126454128642 However, we may concede that in one way Labour leaders have not done enough about AS. People who say that usually mean that it has not done enough to allay the ‘hurt and anger’ among people who hug their own hurt and anger and will do so until Corbyn is gone. Or else it has not expelled the thousands who have proved their AS by defending ChrisWilliamson. What the Labour Party leadership does owe its half million members an apology for is not producing and publishing transparently evidence that would let them know the extent of AS within their own ranks. All that bewildered members have been allowed know is that hundreds have been suspended by mysterious committees following mysterious definitions, and often for offences many years old. A Transparent evidence based approach is favoured by Prof of Statistics Harvey Goldstein. Goldstein is among those whom the the Board of Deputies persuaded the Guardian to regard as “Fringe Jews” whose signatures should not count. Nobody is going to care if that offends their “jewish sensitivities” https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/ther-is-no-sound-evidence-to-back-the-claims-of-labours-antisemitism/ “The demeaning effect on rational democratic debate is obvious, but it does not have to be like this. Thus, if the Labour Party wishes to make a sensible response , instead of effectively accepting that they have antisemitism and protesting that they are doing all they can to deal with it (which may actually be true) they should seriously consider employing an independent polling agency to survey their members with a suitable questionnaire designed to elicit the real extent of anti-semitic and other racist attitudes – such instruments do exist. Other parties could usefully follow suit and if they didn’t could be fairly accused of cowardice. This would I believe help to properly contextualise the debate but also illustrate that there are better ways to conduct politics. Your task would be to get all that the above into a nutshell |