Antisemitic storm brewing?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Wouldn't mind as much if there had been reports of anti-semitic behaviour within the club and we'd not responded to it with appropriate action.

It's almost like saying because I haven't publicly denounced racism and/or joined an anti-racism group then I must be a racist.
This situation is more like you have specifically been asked to publicly denounce racism, but you refuse to.
 



Wouldn't mind as much if there had been reports of anti-semitic behaviour within the club and we'd not responded to it with appropriate action.

It's almost like saying because I haven't publicly denounced racism and/or joined an anti-racism group then I must be a racist.

Silence is violence these days.
 
This situation is more like you have specifically been asked to publicly denounce racism, but you refuse to.
And, so what?
Are we becoming like Maoist China in the cultural revolution when people were obliged to stand and denounce people or were forced to denounce themselves. Surely the right to free speech includes the right to say nothing?

Isn't the issue that the specific definition of anti-semitism they are being asked to endorse basically defines criticism of actions of the Israeli state as
anti-semitism. Why should a government be above criticism?
 
Don’t expect this thread to stay here very long.

Let’s be clear, racism in any form is abhorrent.

All I would say is that before anyone criticises the club They should educate themselves on the issue. They may think differently about it if they do.

The Jewish author of the IHRA definition doesn’t think it should be adopted due to the examples about Israel that have been attached to the definition. It’s been politicised and we are seeing slow but deliberate moves to legalise the occupation and annexation of Palestinian Land.

I’m happy for the Blades to stand firm on this.
This is what I thought the issue might be. It looks pretty close to saying never criticise Israel which may be why we haven't signed up to it.
 
This is what I thought the issue might be. It looks pretty close to saying never criticise Israel which may be why we haven't signed up to it.
“However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

 
Wouldn't mind as much if there had been reports of anti-semitic behaviour within the club and we'd not responded to it with appropriate action.

It's almost like saying because I haven't publicly denounced racism and/or joined an anti-racism group then I must be a racist.

This is the issue, and how it looks from a quick scan of the headlines on Google.

At the risk of sounding ignorant/oblivious/naïve, I can honestly say I have never witnessed any anti-Semitic behaviour whatsoever in any walk of life, let alone Bramall Lane. Sexism, racism, homophobia I can't say the same for, unfortunately.
 
I watch sheffield United play football, because I like football and I particularly like Sheffield United.

Whilst doing so, I don't give a shiny shit about politics and worthy causes. It invades enough of our lives as it is.
 
If it's Talia I can see why.
They do seem to be pretty adept at dishing the jobs out, especially the Education Consultant.
 
Who? The Jewish?
Whoever is wanting us to sign up to it.
As I said on shoutbox earlier, it’s a Middle East political argument. Keep the club out of it please Abdullah. Just accept the definition and then hold whatever personal views you wish to hold.
One should not give in to pressure of this sort.
 



Bert's neighbour is an authority on these matters, he will ask her this weekend to find out how much trouble we are in, she's a very charming lady so he might be a while getting back....:)


....”she’s in the attic”....
 
“However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”


That was the UK‘s previous guidance for anti-semitism. The date on that is the 30/03/2016 - the UK didn’t adopt the definition until Dec 2016. The UK Home Affairs Committee requested that the examples referring to Israel be removed or clauses inserted stating it is not anti-Semitic to criticise Israel. The UK Gov rejected that request and instead believed that an existing caveat “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic”, was sufficient to not affect Britains laws on freedom of speech. However, this caveat is guidance only and not written into law.

Many Jewish people including Jewish scholars reject the definition.
 
Bert's neighbour is an authority on these matters, he will ask her this weekend to find out how much trouble we are in, she's a very charming lady so he might be a while getting back....:)

Surely the length of time it will take for His Royal Bertness to get back from 'this charming lady' will depend on how charming she finds Bert!
 
This little football club does literally nothing wrong and yet there are always forces out there trying to tarnish it. Why?
 
Whoever is wanting us to sign up to it.

One should not give in to pressure of this sort.

Exactly this.

In recent months/years this type of 'show alliance to us or else' extreme approach seems to have intensified. This type of tactic is pushing me away because as Sheffsteel has correctly pointed out, it amounts to bullying.

Remember the James McLean refusal to wear a poppy? Many were outraged and thought he was a **** but he gave his informed reason why he objects and I respect his willingness to stand alone with it. He politely opted out of observing it without trying to force everyone else to abandon the tradition. Fair enough, tolerance swings both ways. Why can't we let something like this be an example of how to disagree?
 
That was the UK‘s previous guidance for anti-semitism. The date on that is the 30/03/2016 - the UK didn’t adopt the definition until Dec 2016. The UK Home Affairs Committee requested that the examples referring to Israel be removed or clauses inserted stating it is not anti-Semitic to criticise Israel. The UK Gov rejected that request and instead believed that an existing caveat “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic”, was sufficient to not affect Britains laws on freedom of speech. However, this caveat is guidance only and not written into law.

Many Jewish people including Jewish scholars reject the definition.
The actual definition is

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The IHRA then provides examples -

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.




 
Exactly this.

In recent months/years this type of 'show alliance to us or else' extreme approach seems to have intensified. This type of tactic is pushing me away because as Sheffsteel has correctly pointed out, it amounts to bullying.

Remember the James McLean refusal to wear a poppy? Many were outraged and thought he was a **** but he gave his informed reason why he objects and I respect his willingness to stand alone with it. He politely opted out of observing it without trying to force everyone else to abandon the tradition. Fair enough, tolerance swings both ways. Why can't we let something like this be an example of how to disagree?
Maybe because the club haven’t given their informed reason why they object?
 
Latka paper tomorrow......move on
 
Maybe because the club haven’t given their informed reason why they object?

Seen as we are purely guessing then;

Maybe we just feel like this is a political stance that we don't wish to associate with, much less because someone has demanded we "adopt their definition" or else get a nasty article published about it...
 



Maybe because the club haven’t given their informed reason why they object?
I'm not in posession of all the facts here, but apparently we are the only Premier League club not adopting this stance. Given it's widely acknowledged that we are all orphan kidney punching wankers as it is, coupled with a Muslim chairman, is this an absolute shitstorm heading our way, or a storm in a teacup?

Antisemitic Blades?
As they say in Sheffield and Israel “I can’t get mi cap on”.
 

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom