Update 1: Update – we have just been notified that the copy of the statement we have is subject to some minor corrections and other amendments. We will post these once they are completed.
We have been asked to take it down pending these, and a consensus has emerged that we should do that. We will post the guidelines once they are completed.
The guidelines reproduced the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)’sWORKING DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM, which you can read yourselves meanwhile.
[So Greens Engage website have now removed the main body of the post that appears below. They don't say who has asked them to remove the post]
GPRC statement on the use of antisemitic language
The Green Party is an anti-racist party. At our Autumn 2008 conference, the Green Party passed policy to oppose antisemitism. Policy has continued to improve since. This week, the Green Party Regional Committee (GPRC) approved a Statement on the Usage of Antisemitic Language. The guidelines do not forestall robust criticism of the policies and actions of the Israeli government, but do serve to draw lines beyond which this ceases to be criticism. We feel that these guidelines are sufficiently sensitive and specific to serve the Green Party well.
We reproduce the statement below.
GPRC statement on the use of antisemitic language
16th October 2010
The Green Party places equality and lack of discrimination at the heart of all its policies. Within the Green Party everyone should engage in discourse with others in a language of mutual respect.
Following an investigation of antisemitism by GPRC in early 2009 it was agreed that a working party should prepare guidance on the use of antisemitic language. The specific recommendation from the report of 13th March 2009 is set out below.
2. A working party should be set up to establish guidelines on appropriate and inappropriate language for use in online and other discussions, so that unintentional racism and antisemitism is avoided.
Following some difficulties in the working group at its meeting in June 2010 GPRC asked two members to look at existing guidelines with a view to producing guidelines for the next GPRC meeting. These guidelines are intended to inform the party for the future.
It must be realised that even top academics disagree about what constitutes antisemitic language and it is clear that the issues have become more complicated and nuanced, in particular in relation to criticisms of Israel’s actions and the so-called ‘new antisemitism’.
The Green Party uses the precautionary principle in general to respect people and the planet. In applying the precautionary principle the definition of racism most applicable is that of the MacPherson report of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry.
It is not acceptable for an individual to say ‘I am not a racist’ if his or her words or acts are perceived to be racist.
However in the area of antisemitism one of the most difficult and contentious areas is the dividing line between antisemitism and criticism of Israel and whether accusations of antisemitism are used to stifle criticism. Any guidelines must enable robust criticism of Israel, in the same way as if it were applied to any other country. More careful use of language has the potential to produce a much better quality of debate on the genuine issues of concern.
Considerable research has demonstrated there is no perfect definition. A suitable definition should be able to be applied to any country or cultural group. This holds true of the EUMC definition. Like all definitions it has its limitations however it is a practical document which if used throughout Green Party discussion will enable good quality debate without giving rise to unnecessary offense. We recognise that it may need to be revised in light of the recent Citizen Act/Nationality Act in Israel. The Green Party holds itself to the highest standards of fairness and must do everything it can to avoid offensive and discriminatory language.
European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)
WORKING DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM
The purpose of this document is to provide a practical guide for identifying incidents, collecting data, and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with antisemitism.
Working definition: “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.”
In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
- Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
- Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
- Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
2 Responses
The original Engage post
16 Responses to “Green Party adopts careful policy on antisemitism”
Brian Goldfarb Says:
October 25, 2010 at 8:42 pmBetter, but I do notice that it leaves out the bit of the EUMC report and definition which states that the person who gets to decide (or at least is entitled to make a reasoned complaint about) whether antisemitism has occurred is the potential victim, and that it is not up to the alleged perpertrator to deny that this has happened. That is up to a disinterested third party.
Ditto racism.
I wonder why not? Does omitting that let certain highly placed Green Party individuals off the hook? Or am I just being my usual paranoid self?
Chris Fox Says:
October 25, 2010 at 11:03 pmAs far as I can tell, the EUMC draft definition included in the GPRC report is an accurate reflection of the version published on the web, which does not appear to mention the issue of who gets to decide, or the onus of proof.
I think the adoption of this definition is a very positive step. Of course, having a policy is only part of the story; there also needs to be a commitment to implement it effectively, and consistently, without prejudice.
Absolute Observer Says:
October 25, 2010 at 8:49 pmMira and Raphael,
What are your views on this?
More generally, Lucas’ notorious comment that you cannot criticise Israel without being labelled antisemitic? Would it fall under this policy? And, if so, should not the “leader” of the party be setting an example for what is acceptable, rather than what may now be deemed unacceptable?Raphael Says:
October 25, 2010 at 9:00 pmI don’t know what is the rational for this omission as I was not in the meeting which endorsed this. But this has to be recognized as a major move in the right direction by the Green Party.
And the issue of unintentional racism is addressed upfront before the EUMC definition:
“The Green Party uses the precautionary principle in general to respect people and the planet. In applying the precautionary principle the definition of racism most applicable is that of the MacPherson report of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry.
It is not acceptable for an individual to say ‘I am not a racist’ if his or her words or acts are perceived to be racist.”
Mira Vogel Says:
October 26, 2010 at 11:52 amLike Chris and Raphael I think this is very positive. I have since been informed that the circulated statement is not finalised, and there are some small corrections and other amendments. We are now waiting for a final version, as well as an indication of its status, how it will be disseminated at grass roots level, and how it can be implemented.
I think the language of the EUMC statement is highly qualified and does not shut down debate. It does imply careful, responsible, substantiated arguments that do not reveal particular animosity. This is only good politics.
Inna Says:
October 26, 2010 at 4:06 amIt’s definitely a move in the right direction but we will see what happens when (as we say here) the rubber hits the road. And that will happen when (not if; when) a Green Party member (possibly elected) uses anti-Semitic tropes to “criticise” Israel and, when called on it, says something to the effect, “You’re only saying that because the Zionists (Jews–I mean only Jews are ever Zionists, right?) told you to and the Jews control the media.”
What happens then? Will this individual be suffered to remain in the Green Party or not?
The words are a good move in the right direction. Let’s see how (or if) they are implemented.
Regards,
Inna
October 26, 2010 at 12:22 pmI find it truly amazing that in 2010 a political party’s commitment to an anti-racist commitment is seen as particulalrly worthy of praise. Surely it is no more than a basic assumption that a party would not be or condone or articulate anti-Jewish hostility.
Maybe one needs to wonder how it got to the stage that this issue needed to be “dealt with” in the first place.
Bialik Says:
October 26, 2010 at 1:48 pm“We recognise that it may need to be revised in light of the recent Citizen Act/Nationality Act in Israel.”
What is all this about? The ‘oath of loyalty’ proposal? It is not now and may never become an Act – see Lozowick on the matter.http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/
Or are the Greens alluding to something else? Can anyone explain?
Winston Says:
October 28, 2010 at 12:27 pmThis is proof positive that political interventions against antisemitism do, in fact, work. The EUMC definition, excoriated by some at the time of its adoption as a pro-Israel smokescreen, has slowly become a benchmark. This process was aided in no small measure by the UK’s All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry Into Antisemitism and its report in 2005 – itself a significant political intervention. If one strategy for countering antisemitism is containment, developments such as these need to be properly – and positively – evaluated.
Deborah Fink Says:
October 29, 2010 at 2:55 amThe Green Party has NOT adopted this intellectually dishonest definition.
The GPRC does not have the power to implement something that is not policy, and something that has not been passed at conference, is not policy.Many of us in the party, including Jews, are up in arms over this ridiculous statement which was approved in naivety and with a lack of understanding of the issues. Rest assured, that we will not let the Green party adopt it.
INT Says:
October 29, 2010 at 10:11 amThis is the bit that the anti-zionists object to. It seems to me to be a very careful outline of criteria as to how we might judge the boundaries between criticism and antisemitic demonziation. It makes itself clear that one would still have to use judgment to apply the criteria, that it doesn’t legislate against anything automatically… I can’t see what this definition excludes which anybody reasonable might want to say. It makes extremely clear and harsh criticism possible:
Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:
* Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
* Applying double standards b requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
* Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
* Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
* Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.
October 29, 2010 at 12:15 pmMira and Raphael,
Could you clarify something for me?
Deborah argues that many in the Green Party, including Jews”, etc.
Is it the case that, on matters relating to Israel and the antisemitism that can attach to it, members have one vote and Jewish members two votes (one for their general membership) and one because they are “Jewish)?
Or is it simply the case that Deborah is exploiting her being Jewish for purely rhetorical purposes in her fight against the opposition to antisemitism within her adopted party?
Thanks,
AO
October 29, 2010 at 12:25 pm“with a lack of understanding of the issues”.
Like the way Zionists use antisemitism to stop debate?
Like the way one cannot criticise Israel without being called an antisemite?
Like the way one cannot make a comparision between Israel and Nazi Germany without being labeled an antisemite.No wonder Deborah FInk opposes it. It would mean that she is left with nothing other than the resources of rationalist argument. Never the best weapon for articulating an obsession.
Fr. Edwards Says:
October 29, 2010 at 12:32 pmBut isn’t that exactly the anti-zionist view – that Israel is a racist endeavour? And they want to be able to say so.
And if other countries are compared to “Nazis” the last paragraph permits the charge to be levelled at Israel?
October 29, 2010 at 1:04 pmDeborah Fink:
“Happy Birthday to you,
I’m ashamed as a Jew,”Howard Jacobson won the Man Booker on false pretences – it is supposed only to be awarded for a work of fiction.
October 29, 2010 at 7:34 pmI knew the video of Finkster reminded my of something…….
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/israeli-troops-settlers-clash/6sh0f52
Same tactic, same obsession.
October 30, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Now this _is_ interesting. Deborah Fink says “Many of us in the [Green] party, including Jews, are up in arms over this ridiculous statement which was approved in naivety and with a lack of understanding of the issues. Rest assured, that we will not let the Green party adopt it.” So, she knows that “many” in the party “including Jews” are against the proposed policy on antisemitism for theGreen Party. In her usual manner (see numerous comments over the last 5 years of this website’s life), she presents no evidence, but merely asserts this. This report has been up for 5 days, and she might have known of this a day or two before it was posted. Clearly, time enough for her not only to poll party members, but also to determine their religious affiliation/ethnicity.
So, Deborah Fink, how about your evidence for this assertion? If you don’t know us by now, then you are a _really_ slow learner: we expect evidence to go with statements like this, but I don’t expect any. What I expect (on past performance) is a repetition (possibly more than one) of the original statement, probably somewhat varied in language, plus attempts to introduce unrelated topics, in the hope that we won’t notice that no evidence has been produced for the first assertion.
Secondly, Ms Fisk finds that fighting antisemitism is a bad thing. We know this, because she says so: she tells us that the proposed policy adopting the EUMC policy on antisemitism is a “ridiculous statement”. So now she knows better than the all-party committee (of both Houses of Parliament) on antisemitism, which recommended to both Houses that such a policy should be adopted. Note that there was no opposition to this recommendation.
She also knows that the EUMC definition is plainly nonsense, because her assertion of ridiculousness must cover the EUMC definition contained within the policy document.
Deborah Fisk, if she is serious about her ludicrous statement, thus wishes to become that rather uncommon creature: an antisemitic Jew who cannot be punished, because her party won’t punish her, if she has her way, because she will make sure that it doesn’t adopt a policy on antisemitism. And if she thinks that my statement is nonsense, she should ask herself why she wishes her party _not_ to adopt a policy on antisemitism, unless it is to allow her and others to be antisemitic with impunity.
Now it is one thing to propose a boycott of Israel, in whole or in part: that doesn’t _have_ to be antisemitic (although there are all sorts of arguments about that that she has never answered, even when these arguments are aimed directly at her); it is also one thing to be anti-Zionist, with the same caveat as just above, that doesn’t _have_ to be antisemitic. However, to wish to stop one’s party adopting _the_ agreed antisemitic policy raises interesting issues. It puts such a person in bed (an unfortunate but appropriate analogy) with open and admitted antisemites, such as the BNP, the EDL (despite their protestations to the contrary), Hamas, Hezbollah, the government of President Ahmadinejad or Iran, among many others.
I’d think far more than twice before being willingly labelled alongside such people, but this clearly doesn’t bother Deborah Fink – assuming she’s even thought about it.
Would she propose such a course of action against a proposed policy on racism? Do we need an answer to such a question?
[...] See their new thinking on Greens Engage. [...]
Green Party adopts careful policy on antisemitism « Engage – the anti-racist campaign against antisemitism
October 25, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Bialik commenting at Engage links to an interesting article related to this sentence of the above statement:
“We recognise that it may need to be revised in light of the recent Citizen Act/Nationality Act in Israel.”
http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/2010/10/if-it-was-reported-it-must-be-true-or.html
Raphael
October 26, 2010 at 2:22 pm