Tommy Robinson fight back against BBC corruption

[EFLImpudence]

Under the new IHRA definition of anti Semitism I imagine it would quite possible to be "anti Semitic" to a black Jew.

So, you agree the definition is ridiculous.
Like saying anti-Celtic is prejudice against catholics or Ireland - and you could be anti-Celtic by prejudice against a black catholic.

The new definition states that it is possible that a non Jew can be anti Semitic towards another non Jew,

I didn't know that.

please don't ask me how that can be possible because I don't have a clue.

I'm not surprised.

If you take words to mean what they actually mean it is very simple.
You obviously didn't read the article I linked to recently in my "The Truth Is Out There" thread.

Semitism has nothing to do with being jewish or not.
Some semites are jewish; some are not.
Some jews are semites; some are not.

So, you (assuming you are not jewish nor semitic) having prejudice against a Palestinian muslim because he is semitic.

 

[Notch7]

Because they use the socially constructed concept of race and racism. Which doesn't espouse the theory that there are different races within the one human race.

No they dont

 

[jasonzyx]

On the subject of race, Darwin believed that humanity comprised of different races.
Darwins theory of evolution is taught in schools ,is Darwins theory wrong?.

Darwin did indeed believe that there were different races within the human race.
He was a product of the society at the time.

Darwin was, after all, a man of his time, class and society. True, he was committed to a monogenic, rather than the prevailing polygenic, view of human origins, but he still divided humanity into distinct races according to differences in skin, eye or hair colour. He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672903/
​

So Darwinism is fundamentally racist. But his book was published prior to 1900, and science has moved on a long way since the Victorian era.
Maybe some who like to believe in a hierarchy of races have not moved on.
Evolutionism is taught in schools, but the racist aspect of Darwinism is not taught in schools.

Because evolutionary biology is the default scientific position, it is assumed that "scientists" or "biologists" are "evolutionists" unless specifically noted otherwise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism​

 

[jasonzyx]

You obviously didn't read the article I linked to recently in my "The Truth Is Out There" thread.

The other thread conveniently deleted for no apparent reason, other than to save your and sodthisforfun's acute embarrassment.

 

[jasonzyx]

No they dont

What concept do you think that they adopt?

 

[jasonzyx]

So, you agree the definition is ridiculous.

Semitism has nothing to do with being jewish or not.
Some semites are jewish; some are not.
Some jews are semites; some are not.

So, you (assuming you are not jewish nor semitic) having prejudice against a Palestinian muslim because he is semitic.

So on this occasion you choose to disagree with the Oxfod Dictionary definition?

Hostility to or prejudice against Jews.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/anti-semitism
​

I guess you pick and choose which definitions to adopt, or not, as the situation dictates?

 

[jasonzyx]

BTW, Darwin was a sexist also.

such nineteenth century differentiation between the sexes was crucial in providing an alleged biological basis for the superiority of the male.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672903/
​

That was 19 century thinking for you.
That bit is also not taught in schools.

 

[jasonzyx]

Another little excerpt from the link used:

I suggest that although questions about a person's ‘race' are meaningful only in a racist society,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672903/​

 

[EFLImpudence]

So on this occasion you choose to disagree with the Oxfod Dictionary definition?

Hostility to or prejudice against Jews.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/anti-semitism​

No, I have always said that is wrong - and have proved it above.

You seem to be forgetting things.
​

I guess you pick and choose which definitions to adopt, or not, as the situation dictates?

As usual, you guess wrongly.

 

[jasonzyx]

No, I have always said that is wrong - and have proved it above.

Only if you believe the fundamentally racist theory that there are different races within the one human race.
There isn't, so you have not proven the Oxford Dictionary wrong.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Let's not introduce diversion and confusion by presenting imagination stretching examples.

You first said that that was an example of racism.

The colour of the skin does not determine whether one is a Jew or not.
Your suggestion confirms it, " a black Jew"!

Turn the stick around.

No, but there are black people who are jews but are not semitic.

Keep up.

 

[jasonzyx]

Let's not introduce diversion and confusion by presenting imagination stretching examples.

You first said that that was an example of racism.

What are you referring to? It's very opaque and confusing.

No, but there are black people who are jews but are not semitic.

If they are Jewish, obviously, according to the Oxford Dictionary, they could be victims of antisemitism, irrespective of the colour of their skin.
Just like people can be British, irrespective of their skin colour, their hair, eyes etc.

Please don't resort to insults so soon. It speaks volumes about the quality of your argument.

 

[EFLImpudence]

If they are Jewish, obviously, according to the Oxford Dictionary, they could be victims of antisemitism, irrespective of the colour of their skin.

No, they are NOT semitic.

Just like people can be British, irrespective of their skin colour, their hair, eyes etc.

No. Not like that at all.

It's like saying a catholic from Somalia is Celtic.

 

[Deleted member 18243]

police....the social services... knew what was going on... Pakistani men .. abusing young girls because the authorities were turning a blind eye for various reasons.

The main reason, in my experience, that the police turn a blind eye to Pakistani criminality is because of the violent nature and the gang mentality of the British Pakistani. In our lovely diverse multicultural towns up north, if the police bother to turn up to a report of an incident involving Pakistanis, they will quickly be surrounded by a large and aggressive crowd, making any sort of intervention or arrest impossible.

As is well known, the police only like easy arrests.

 

[Deleted member 18243]

You sure? I just googled it and the first 13 posts are all about the girl in Manchester, the whole first page and onto the second page.

This is the case in question:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-tells-rapists-relatives-terrified-trial.html

The rapists got something like 10 years each, 3 years ago, which means they will probably be out now, and continuing with their valuable contributions to our country.

I see that Vinty is on message... it's the victim's fault.