Calling Out Jonathan Sacks

by Les May

IT seems that once again Jonathan Sacks has chosen to attack JeremyCorbyn who he accused of contributing to Jews questioning whether Britain was still a safe place to raise children.  Which raises the question ‘If they do leave Britain where will they go which is a safer place?’
An 85 page report from the Institute for Jewish Policy Research with the title ‘Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain: A study of attitudes towards Jews and Israel’ by L. Daniel Staetsky says on page 5:

‘… it is worth stressing a fact that runs the risk of being understated in a problem-centred report: levels of antisemitism in Great Britain are among the lowest in the world.’

and on page 64-65:

‘Looking at the political spectrum of British society, the most antisemitic group consists of those who identify as very right-wing. In this group about 14% hold hard-core antisemitic attitudes and 52% hold at least one attitude, compared again to 3.6% and 30% in the general population.  The very left-wing, and, in fact, all political groups located on the left, are no more antisemitic than the general population. This finding may come as a surprise to those who maintain that in today’s political reality, the left is the more serious, or at least, an equally serious source of antisemitism, than the right. Indeed, Jewish victims of antisemitic violence or harassment identify Muslims and the far-left as the chief perpetrators. This perception is not limited to victims of antisemitism. Three academic studies on the topic of left-wing antisemitism have been published over the past two years, 35 clearly indicating that the perception that the left has an issue with antisemitism is quite prevalent in the minds of Jews and scholars of political sociology and history. Is this view misguided or rooted in error? Not quite. It is simply insufficiently precise.

The left tends to see itself, and is commonly regarded, as an anti-racist and egalitarian political group, both in terms of its political goals and its modus operandi. This image tends to impact on people’s expectations of the left or, at the very least, draws attention to how well (or otherwise) it performs in relation to its own proclaimed values. We found that the left (including the far-left) is no less antisemitic than the general population. This is not a trivial finding, as it runs counter to the left’s self-proclaimed ethos. When the expectation is to find less antisemitism than elsewhere, the finding of ‘just the same’ level of antisemitism as elsewhere is likely to be noticed by politically attuned individuals. Simultaneously embarrassing the left and being used as a weapon by it critics, this dissonance becomes the centre of attention and gets accentuated.’ (my emphasis)

So what do you have to do to be classed as having an antisemitic attitude? Not very much it seems. Here is an example of what it takes on pages 63 and 64:

‘However, what Jews are exposed to far more frequently are people who hold, and from time to time may express, views that make Jews feel uncomfortable or offended. A person expressing such a view (e.g. ‘Jews think that they are better than other people’) may hold this view in isolation and may indeed hold a weak version of it, but when it is casually voiced in front of a Jewish individual, it can cause considerable upset and concern.’ (my emphasis)

Taken at its face value this means that one section of the population is demanding the right never to be offended and the right to tell us what we should think about them. This is a demand for exceptionalism.

At the risk of boring the reader by repetition ‘freedom of speech is having the right to tell people what they do not want to hear’. And that means having the right to say things which other people choose to find offensive or feel uncomfortable about. This right is protected by Article 10 of the European Convention. I’m not going to let the likes of Jonathan Sacks take it from me and I hope that Labour party members and supporters think likewise.

Labour needs to stop feeling embarrassed by having the epithet ‘antisemitic’ thrown at it and let people know that what Sacks and his ilk are trying to do is tell us what we should think.

You can find the report from which the above extracts are drawn at:

https://cst.org.uk/public/data/file/7/4/JPR.2017.Antisemitism%20in%20contemporary%20Great%20Britain.pdf

It is hardly surprising that our media are full of stories about antisemitism. In 2015 and 2016 alone, at least six surveys of attitudes towards Jews were carried out by polling firms in the UK (including YouGov, Populus, and ICM Unlimited) working on behalf of different academic and advocacy organisations and news outlets. With commendable honesty the report says ‘the polling of antisemitic attitudes is a burgeoning enterprise’.

What makes this report different is that it is difficult to fault the methodology or the presentation of the results. I urge you to download and read it.

******

Letter to NV: 'The Banality of Evil?'

Dear Editor Northern Voices (27/10/2016),

As with many people who have been observing Rochdale Council's  Adult Social Care crisis I was heartened to read Rob Greig, Chief Executive Officer  at NDTi precision dissection of Rochdale Councils current ' consultation'  on Adult Social Care cuts. Families  & Campaigners are clearly vindicated in their concerns ,and the 'outrage' felt locally & nationally by those opposed to the Councils plans , so soundly demolished by Rob Greigs articles ,will not be abated by his correct observation that :  

'Sadly the Director’s article largely confirmed my belief that some key people in the Council may be pushing this change without really understanding policy and practice.'

(Rochdale’s ‘Transformation’ of Learning Disability Services by Rob Greig, Chief Executive at the National Development Team for Inclusion, 25 October 2016. 

http://www.ndti.org.uk/blog/rochdales-transformation-of-learning-disability-services.

It's also important to note that the massive cutbacks ahead will  not just affect Learning Disabilities alone.

Our Community is under attack by Tory Austerity . Our majority Labour Council appear to be colluding in continued Tory Austerity rather than protecting their Labour voters against it.

We will all have our quality of life diminished and eroded.

We did not elect majority Labour Councils , to have Labour Councillors enter by the front door of Town Halls the length and breadth of the North  of England, merely to have them enable the implementation of Tory policies smuggled in by the back door.

I'd urge every voter in Rochdale to read the proposals at : http://www.rochdale.gov.uk/consultations. 

I tried yesterday to find paper copied in Riverside for those without internet access with no success. Another worrying flaw in this supposed 'consultation' process. As is the apparent total lack of alternative versions such as large, print, braille or BSL British Sign Language. But that aside these cuts will affect thousands of local people for the worse.

All the council spin in the world can not sugar coat a very bitter and unpalatable pill indeed ; And this medicine will not make the patient better , far from it.

CS-2017-305 Rationalisation of additional funding for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) will negatively affect Mental Health Service Users,

NH-2017-312 Continued provision of School Crossing Patrols at a charge to schools , will negatively affect Children & Parents , NH-2017-310 Proposal to review the Legal Advice: Welfare, Debt and Housing support will negatively affect those needing advice, NH-2017-311 Review of Community Centre grant funding , people using Community Centres .

Millions of people are going to go under the hammer &  anvil of Tory Austerity , with the Westminster Tory's stoking the furnace and Labour Councils and Councillors doing the hammering. Hundreds of thousands of local people will be directly or indirectly emotionally , physically, mentally and financially damaged by this slash & burn economic process.

Barrister Steve Broach has helpfully published an article called 'Challenging local cuts – some key legal questions' for campaigners and communities to ask of their Councils who are consulting on cuts with their local tax payers. With this in mind I'd like to ask of Rochdale Council's officials about to wield the axe to vital services :

Will the council be able to meet all its ‘specific’ statutory duties owed to individual residents? For example:

1.The duty to meet all 'eligible' needs for disabled adults and their carers under the Care Act 2014

2.The duty to meet 'eligible' needs for disabled children  under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970

3.The duty to provide free suitable home to school travel arrangements for all 'eligible' disabled children  under section 508B of the Education Act 1996

4.The duty to secure special education provision in health, educatiin, health and care plans for disabled children and young people  in section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014

5.The duty to provide advocacy to disabled people and carers during the care and support assessment and planning process under section 67 of the Care Act 2014.

Will the council be able to meet its ‘sufficiency’ duties to have a sufficient level of particular services to meet local needs? For example:

1.Childcare, including childcare for disabled children up to the age of 18, under section 6 of the Childcare Act 2006

2.Short breaks for disabled children under regulation 4 of the Breaks for Carers of Disabled Children Regulations 2011

3.Education and care services for disabled children, under section 27(2) of the Children and Families Act 2014

4.Children’s centres, under section 5A of the Childcare Act 2006

5.Services for disabled adults and their carers, under the ‘market shaping’ duty in section 5 of the Care Act 2014.   

Has the council had ‘due regard’ to the needs specified in the PSED (see above) – for example the need to advance equality of opportunity for disabled people (children and adults)?

Will the proposed cuts give rise to unlawful discrimination between different groups, contrary either to the Equality Act 2010 or  Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights ?

Has the council had regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children under section 11 of the Children Act 2004 ?

Has the council treated children’s best interests as a primary consideration in its decision making, as required by Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child ?

Has there been ‘fair' consultation on the proposals? In particular (quotes are from the leading consultation case of ex parte Coughlan:

 1.Has consultation taken place at a ‘formative stage’, i.e. sufficiently early in the decision making to influence the outcome?

2.Have consultees been provided with ‘sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit of intelligent consideration and response’ – i.e. do residents know what cuts are being proposed and why?

3.Have consultees had ‘adequate time’ for consideration and response?

4.Once the consultation has finished, has ‘the product of consultation’ been ‘conscientiously taken into account’ in the final decision.

It was Hannah Arendt who spoke of the terrible consequences of blind obedience, the ' banality of evil' , these proposed cuts are quite simply evil.

Sometimes no other word will suffice.

Those making them should pause to examine their moral compasses for they will have to live with their consciences - if they still have one?

To decide which side they are on

 History will record their names and actions for posterity.  Just as surely as students of local history are today utterly incredulous at the callousness and  horrific actions resulting in the cruelties inflicted on the poor and vulnerable by the ' guardians of the Parish' hundreds of years ago with regard to those seeking Poor  Relief or recourse to the notorious Workhouse .So with absolute certainty will future historians and public opinion judge their individual actions today .

Yours faithfully, 

ANDREW WASTLING