From: JNugent73@mail.com 
  
 On 07/08/2025 07:02 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote: 
 > On 07/08/2025 in message  JNugent wrote: 
 > 
 >> On 07/08/2025 08:43 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote: 
 >>> On 06/08/2025 in message <1070g6m$3kc18$1@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote: 
 >>> 
 >>>>> The IHRA definition is in my opinion fine, if we're looking only at 
 >>>>> the definition and not the "examples" or "illustrations" tacked on at 
 >>>>> the end. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> The IHRA definition is purple prose, "a certain perception". Purposely 
 >>>> ill-defined so that it can be enforced in one way and defended as 
 >>>> reasonable in another. The whole point of ill-defined rules is that 
 >>>> they can be enforced partially. Which is exactly what has happened. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> There is also the question of why we need a complex definition in the 
 >>>> first place. Respect and protection should be universal, extended to 
 >>>> all sectarian groups. The idea, and especially application, of 
 >>>> antisemitism is designed to entitle Jews to rights above those of non 
 >>>> Jews. 
 >>> 
 >>> I wanted to come back and thank people for their input this has been 
 >>> educational for me. 
 >>> 
 >>> My original disquiet was as Pancho says, why do Jews get special 
 >>> recognition? 
 >> 
 >> But DO they? 
 >> 
 >> What is the basis for that assertion / question? 
 >> 
 >>> We should have generic rule on how we treat other people, 
 >>> whatever their race, religion, education whatever, nobody has a right to 
 >>> be treated better or worse than anybody else. 
 >> 
 >> That is what we do have. 
 > 
 > If we do have that then what is the equivalent of antisemitism for Arabs 
 > or Scots or Methodists? I think we are talking about race with 
 > antisemitism not religion as I mistakenly thought. 
  
 You'd have to make up a word - a neologism - for each of those. It 
 wouldn't be difficult. What would be hard is getting others to accept 
 and adopt the same word. 
 > 
 > 
 >>> As somebody said the the thread I could say Saudi Arabia had undue 
 >>> influence on the White House and wouldn't be called anti anything for 
 >>> saying so. The same should apply to everybody. 
 >> 
 >> What other people call you or anyone else (within reason) is not the 
 >> concern of the law, surely? 
 >> 
 >> Against whom would you be discriminating if you said either that: 
 >> 
 >> (a) Jews (or Saudis) had undue influence on the UK government, or 
 >> 
 >> (b) Israel (or Saudi Arabia) had undue influence on the UK government? 
 >> 
 >> Note that I refer to the UK government merely to locate the discussion 
 >> within the jurisdiction. 
 > 
 >> From the replies I had suggesting Jewish people had undue influence could 
 > lead to a suggestion I am antisemitic. If I did the same with Saudi 
 > Arabia I would just risk decapitation presumably. 
  
 Doubtful. 
  
 For all that people say about it, Saudi Arabia doesn't have the death 
 penalty for insulting the government. 
  
 And anyway, you'd have to actually be there. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)