Site icon Fidelitos

The Labour Decision on Definition of Antisemitism Raises more Questions about our Democracy rather than Answer Questions on Racism

To provide context here it is best to view the full IHRA definition of Antisemitism using the link below so that we understand the details and possible ramifications. People will have differing views/questions on this issue because it is not as some suggest a straight forward proposition and here’s a few considerations; 

  1. Is right/proper to place racism in independent boxes treating each separately/differently rather than have 1 universal definition of racism.
  2. Is right/proper to follow religious and/or political definitions of national or international  lobby groups irrespective of our own values and Democratic processes – especially that is what is termed a “working progress definition” and one that sets examples preceded with this comment; “include, and not limited to”. Is this the path/standard we now follow?  
  3. Where does question of Racism end and the action of Free Speech begin? These are complex/related issues that cannot be treated/debated separately and apply to other religions and other forms of racism.

These I feel are all legitimate concerns/considerations and they should NOT be answered through a purely religious or (semi-political) bend, so here’s my 2 cents worth of thought on this issue;  

My concern in the main is NOT about Policy rather it’s more about how we go about formulating Policy and the influences that get in the way.

Hope this helps.

Related Article

Labour anti-Semitism ‘caveats’ criticised

Working Definition of Antisemitism

Exit mobile version