The Lifeboat News
[ Message Archive | The Lifeboat News ]

    Re: The British Establishment’s Forever War Against Jeremy Corbyn Archived Message

    Posted by George Brennan on December 13, 2020, 6:10 pm, in reply to "The British Establishment’s Forever War Against Jeremy Corbyn"

    answering johnlilbourne

    "The academic and political activist David Hirsh, a staunch supporter of Israel, claims that the EHRC report has “crystallized a new legal precedent . . . whenever an MP, an academic or a [trade union] official says that allegations of antisemitism are invented or exaggerated to smear the left or to silence criticism of Israel, they risk opening their institution to litigation.”

    I am puzzled. Regardless of EHRCs authority to make this judgment where exactly did It do so, if it also allowed for free speech on this issue? What part of the report, chapter and verse, did Corbyn flout or contradict by saying the scale of AS had been overstated?

    None of those Corbyn supporters who think that statement was "unwise" have answered that question; and none of them actually argues that the statement isn't true. Even Paul Mason, who thinks it is down to Corbyn "end the civil war" by actually apologising for having made it, does not argue that it isn't true.

    If it is false of course it shd not have been made. But If it is true it can hardly be unimportant. Do other Corbyn supporters expect Corbyn to apologise of having stated an important truth?

    Another puzzle. Exactly which UK law of the land did Ken Livingstone break by saying what he said. Or did Labour break the law of the land by failing to punish. him for breaking a law of the land? But Labour did punish him.

    So for EHRC the legal charge against Livingstone must still stand, especially if international conventions do not protect him. Why does not EHRC demand that Livingstone should be arrested and charged?

    I seek clarification only. Is there a lawyer in the house.

    gb

    Message Thread: