Maggie May

‘By watering down its definition of antisemitism, the Labour party has made itself a hostile environment for Jews’ --- Margaret Hodge (July 2018)

'Wake up, Maggie. I think I got something to say to you' -- for, I’ll try in earnest to respond to Margaret Hodge’s ‘Guardian’ article with dignity knowing full well of the subject toxicity. Diluting a definition of antisemitism, is merely personal and comes from a passionate plea to validate a political ideology as a definition – the hostile environment for Jews is difficult to fathom too, because residing in a hostile environment implies the situation has become insufferable, hence-forth  does simply validating a definition rids collective sufferance?

Hostility to any demographic goes against the parliamentary constitution the context to which HM Labour party is bound to by parliamentary ethics / code of conduct. As Labour’s philosophy bounds those to social and moral principles, it is understandable that they are representatives to an electorate who voted them into High Office on this Labour principle. On top of this, every incident of unfavourable behaviours within the realm of parliament has to be reported to protect the moral code of practice. One part of this view to being honest and transparent is to avoid any misunderstanding among MPs and another is to provide a system by which the public is made aware of the activities of MPs; to adhere to… meeting the reasonable behaviour standard.    By informing ‘Guardian’ readers that Labour purposefully creates a hostile environment for the Jewish community, you’ll expect a senior respected member of the Labour party to expand on what she meant by hostilities (malevolence due to watering down a definition?) to a left-wing readership --- nothing evidence-based, quite an odd position to take for a senior MP on the Select Committee, who demands actuality / specifics.

Many scholars know of the origin of Semite and it did include Assyrians and Arabs; now the definition has been obscured and tilts into the political spectrum, including Church prophecies, being anti-Semite now refers to anyone who disagrees with Jewish theory, even if the subject  in discussion has nothing to do with Jewish ideology. I categorically and vehemently claim the Germanic original term of: Judehass has no place in a democratic state; as if exemplifies a fascist mind-set unfit for purpose on the shores of a multicultural nation. Unfortunately, the protectionists among us are doing a good job at inking the crystal waters. The academic, Noam Chomsky exacted this notion by announcing – ‘jingoism, racism, fear, religious fundamentalism; those are the means of appealing to people if you’re trying to organise a mass base of support for policies devised to crush them.’  I rarely pen ‘powerful’ demonstrations organised by the Jewish Leadership Council; however the hyperbole storm was set to blow on April 2^nd not in March as Hodge stated, so powerful Hodge couldn’t recall the date.  Another fallacy is the ‘Enough is Enough’ protest was ignored by Labour HQ; Corbyn attended a Passover event a day or so later, he took part in the seder, a traditional meal of the Jewish festival only to be told the left-wing community was ‘the wrong kind of Jew.’

Having had direct conversations with the Chieftain of Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) – indeed, Gideon Falter he was so upfront with me that he proved to be Anti-democratic; to call him offensive is an understatement and he deplores humanity outside his type of regional creed. The ‘CAA’ organisation isn’t fit to be registered as a charity for it unceremoniously attacks Palestinian ‘Occupancy’ campaigners for which Jeremy Corbyn is one.. In Britain we have a proud democracy which enables peaceful campaigning to enrich lives on foreign soils; by default, these scenarios are systematically brought to parliament to be discussed; today by doing so, it’s deemed anti-Semitic. Isn’t it against humanity to disregard a fellow human being? Why the abhorrent take that Theresa May aligned to the IHRA redefined antisemitism and worse still followed up by clarifying anyone guilty of not abiding to the definition will be called out on it – hence, meaning that anti-Semitism is Tory led; this is where we are and it reeks of fascism.

Hodge asks why we have we got here? A paralysis of social justice is the answer… the rise of dehumanised, diseased prose that allows far right ideology to cultivate hostile environments, it’s at pandemic levels. The Palestinian/Israel conflict has been going on for decades; this isn’t new by no means… yet Hodge automatically affiliates the heinous human cost to the HM Opposition’s leadership ----- where’s the logic? Her inclination of a social ‘infection’ is mirrored by the hatred by the ‘Enough is Enough’ campaign whereby lies were sent round like ‘Smarties’ on an individual who has fought racial divides, protested against global conflicts, and won the Sean MacBride Peace Prize in 2017, for his career-long dedication towards nuclear disarmament has been recognised; albeit, not by the BBC. He’s a pacifist, not a racist!  He’s the very reason why the Labour membership has soured and the biggest in Europe and it’s based on his convictions and progressive social program.  Only those who fear what this means for the ‘global elite’ are in trepidation for their incapable of signing up to the social and moral format (s) let alone understanding the need for it in the UK. By signing up to a ‘definition’; terminates all debate because people will be afraid to discuss Israel/Palestinian crimes against humanity for it not being ‘politically correct’ and this via nature fails freedom of speech – a true democrat would nod and comply to this position; not rant against it like a madcap Tory. I’ll denote the collective ideology is distorting ‘not-so-common-sense.’

Don’t get seduced into putting a ‘definition’ at the apex of your consciousness; to the point it defines cerebral prose; because it’s wasteful and superfluous… like all etymology, meanings incessantly change and mean different things for each and every one of us. Why language and debate is vital for human progress especially for the twenty-first century. History informs us that it is the failure of the left that underestimates the pandemic of protectionism; we systematically fall into the trap, why conflicts are continuous. Here’s a valid observation: by personalising one’s abuse (yes, I get it daily) this ubiquitously falls in the lap of tyranny; they then redefine terms /laws by imitating the ‘victim.’  

The Palestinian/ Israel debacle exposes… what really is racism? Both claim the right of self-determination; so the crucial decision is… are we racist or aren’t we? If we’re the latter then the indigenous population has the same rights of self-determination as the settlers who replaced them. The answer is in the detail, if you’re willing to verify it; engage in self-talk and lastly, spread the word.