From: jgnewsid@outlook.com 
  
 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. 
  
  
 >>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. 
  
 -- 
 Jeff Gaines Dorset UK 
 Did you know on the Canary Islands there is not one canary? 
 And on the Virgin Islands same thing, not one canary. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)