Reading: Jews Don't Count (67/365)

[white_hart]

I bought David Baddiel's Jews Don't Count because I thought I probably ought to educate myself about the issue of anti-Semitism in left-wing circles which has been regularly raised as a matter of concern over the last few years, and I liked Baddiel when he was in The Mary Whitehouse Experience and thought that made his book as good a place to start as any.

Baddiel describes Jews Don't Count as a polemic; it's short and readable, but is concentrated much more on making an argument from personal experience than analysing wider trends, and it doesn't really engage with ideas about intersectionality or structural oppression*. It's also rather stream-of-consciousness in format and I didn't always find it easy to follow the thread of Baddiel's argument, or to remember it afterwards. However, the accounts of both active and "passive" anti-Semitism he himself has encountered were certainly compelling evidence that there is an anti-Semitism problem in British society, and that this isn't confined to the right-wing; his main target is the tendency of progressives to omit anti-Semitism from the list of prejudices they are pledged to combat, and Jews from the list of minorities who deserve support, and the book has definitely opened my eyes to things I hadn't really registered before and made me think about who I am including and who I might be excluding without realising it.

* I was also a bit disconcerted by Baddiel's choice to contrast the left-wing reaction to Jeremy Corbyn's failure to address anti-Semitism in the Labour Party ("he's a decent man but he's got a real blind spot") and the general reaction to J.K. Rowling's transphobia as an example of how differently anti-Semitism is treated compared to other forms of prejudice and bigotry, which doesn't really work given that as far as I'm aware Jeremy Corbyn has not personally taken to Twitter to express anti-Semitic views.

Comments

[lilliburlero]

If J.K. Rowling had stuck at the "middle-aged moment", "accidentally" liking transphobic tweets stage, which I think is roughly the level of Corbyn's social media antisemitism gaffes, I think the mainstream left reaction would definitely have been "her heart's in the right place but she doesn't always pick up on transphobic dogwhistles..." But she, uh, didn't.

[tree_and_leaf]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of how Corbyn has handled antisemitism on the Left, but the two things aren't directly comparable. It's not like Corbyn blogged at length about how threatened he felt by Jews and how they were undermining society....

[white_hart]

I'm not sure he even "accidentally" liked anti-Semitic tweets, did he? He entirely failed to address the problem of anti-Semitism in Labour, and I'm sure there are plenty of examples of him actually addressing e.g. anti-Black racism, but it's very different from Rowling and transphobia. (I feel a bit bad for criticising what was generally an interesting and thought-provoking book on this, but it is a hole in the argument that you could drive a bus through and it did have the effect of making me stop and re-examine how I'd responded to some of Baddiel's other points, which is not really doing himself any favours.)

[lilliburlero]

Corbyn liked a Facebook post that showed a mural with antisemitic "global banker" tropes, didn't he?

I am a bit curious anyway as to how Baddiel came to the conclusion that Corbyn somehow escaped criticism in comparison to Rowling - the perception of his failure to deal with antisemitism was surely one of the major reasons for his overall defeat: he took enormous flak for it from almost every major news outlet as well as on social media.

[legionseagle]

Whereas the fact that the LibDems adopted a candidate for Mayor of London who in a previous (Tory) incarnation had driven round Blackburn with a megaphone broadcasting, "Don't vote for Straw, he's a Jew"* barely raised a ripple in either social or mainstream media.

*I can think of many reasons not to vote for Jack Straw, one of them being that he instituted police road blocks breathalysing everyone driving out of Blackburn one Christmas, which is an appalling example of executive overreach, but hers was not one I can endorse.

[white_hart]

Oh yes, there was that (although I think he actually apologised when it was pointed out to him that the mural was anti-Semitic). But he did receive huge amounts of criticism and vitriol over the anti-Semitism issue (and a lot of those critics, or at least the ones in related to and friends with on Facebook) are still talking about it.

(ETA - I normally post the links to the Goodreads version of these reviews on Facebook, and I very deliberately didn't for this one, because I couldn't face the prospect of an argument with my anti-Corbyn relatives who I suspect will interpret any criticism of the book as actual anti-Semitism.)

[white_hart]

Exactly. I think, if anything, it would have got less traction in the mainstream given that rather too many of the left seem to agree that transphobia is a good thing.

[legionseagle]

I think the key moment when she tipped over the line was #IstandwithMaya. If a Labour Party member (let alone its leader) were to tweet #IstandwithStarkey it would be a direct parallel.

[danieldwilliam]

Corbyn had power.

Rowling does not.

[white_hart]

Rowling does have a lot of influence, though.

And I'm definitely not condoning Corbyn's failure to address anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, I think he handled things incredibly badly, but I don't think you can compare the response to that with the response to Rowling repeatedly publishing explicitly transphobic statements in any meaningful way.

[danieldwilliam]

I think influence is importantly different from power in this context.

JK Rowling might have had some role in shaping society through her works and have some platform to speak because of her fame and fortune but no one was obliged to do what she said or take her seriously.

Everyone who wanted to had read her books and seen her films or could assiduously virtue signal by taking convoluted and public steps to consume them without paying Rowling any money. Unless you were actually a recipient of her charitable donations you had nothing to lose by shouting at her on the internet.

Whereas, if you wanted a career or any sort of position or role in the Labour Party Corbyn could ruin your life or at least dent your aspirations.

I don't think Rowling went about actively trying to have people expelled from Pottermore

I'm not surprised that people were a bit coyer about how they dealt with Corbyn.

There are other differences that played in to this but I think the fact that Corbyn could ruin your day in a way that Rowling couldn't or wouldn't is important.

[legionseagle]

JK Rowling absolutely could and did ruin people's days: money may not buy you happiness, but it allows you to have Carter-Ruck on permanent retainer

[danieldwilliam]

Sure if you decide to defame Rowling she's entitled to instruct her lawyers but having a pop at Rowling wasn't going to get Labour Party members, including front bench MP's, expelled from the Party the same way having a pop at Corbyn was. And people were mostly interested in what the Labour Party had to say about anti-semitism inside the Labour Party and how it affected the factional balance inside the Party rather than the views of AN Other Internet User.

[legionseagle]

A libel suit in the hands of JKR is much like a weak patent in the hands of Apple - it doesn't matter whatever the underlying rights or wrongs of the actual case: the defendant will be subjected to the financial equivalent of lingchi long before the substantive issues ever get an airing.

[danieldwilliam]

And yet Kezia Dugdale and Andy Wightman.

It was entirely open to The Day or opponents of Rowling to run a crowdfunder if they were sure of their case and that they hadn't mis-represented Rowling's views and wanted to test it in court. I'm not aware of them even trying.

[legionseagle]

It's difficult to get half a million quid out of a crowdfunder (to say nothing of the risk of an adverse costs award of potentially double that amount, should the Court decide differently.) And that's before you take into account the mental strain and management time engaged in fighting a high profile libel trial. I can see why the offer of amends would be made, even though I think it's a classic example of chilling effects.

[white_hart]

Ah, I think I misunderstood you - I thought you were suggesting that Corbyn should be held to a higher standard because he was in a position of power, so it was fair to compare the reaction to his failure to tackle anti-Semitism with Rowling's active transphobia, but you actually meant the opposite.

[danieldwilliam]

Yeah, I think part of the reason people kept quieter about Corbyn was because he had power and was prepared to use it, not that people ought to have spoken up more about his views because having power he ought to have used it.

I do think that his lack of action on allegations of anti-semitism when he had power says something about his priorities or judgement or possibly even his beliefs.

And I do completely agree with you that comparing the two doesn't quite make the case that Badiel seems to think it makes.

[andrewducker]

I think that's a rather simplistic take:
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/gop-senator-quotes-j-k-rowling-while-blocking-vote-lgbtq-n1231569

Edit: Which isn't to say that Corbyn didn't have *more* power. But Rowling exerts power, and applying a lot of negative publicity on an area has definitely made life a lot harder for some people.

[danieldwilliam]

I think you misunderstand how I think the power is directed.

Corbyn's power is directed at *you* if you critise him. His gang will come and get you. Very directly if you are a Labour MP, they will try and have you deselected. Or if you are the Chair of the CLP, they will try and have you expelled from the Party. Or, if you listen to war stories about Militant, worse.

Rowling might be prayed in aid by some USian legislator but she ain't expelling any Labour Party members. JK Rowling is not going to make bad things happen to *you* if you go about calling her names.

So, I think part of the reason why Rowling got more grief, more directly, from some of the internets for her views than Corbyn got for his is that Corbyn would come after you if you gave him grief.

[andrewducker]

I can see that being a reason why the people that the Labour Party had direct power over wouldn't want to criticise him directly, certainly (not that it stopped some of them). But Corbyn's power over _me_ was no greater than Rowling's.

[danieldwilliam]

But people were most interested in what people in the Labour Party had to say about Corbyn and whether they were being factional about it. Along side the direct accusations of anti-semitism you get something along the lines of "Corbyn isn't doing enough to deal with anti-semitism in the Party" which obfuscastes the issue a bit. And, I think, quite a few of the people who were havering over Corbyn were doing so because they didn't want to be expelled from the Party or sacked from the Front Bench or whatever.

It's all a bit clearer and cleaner with Rowling regardless of which side you're on and less likely to have direct person consquences for the people who are thought leaders in the response.

Badiel's point was that the difference in behaviour of opponents of Rowlings on trans-issues and Corbyn's on anti-semitism reveals that it is still okay to be an anti-semite from the liberal left. I think my response to that is that part of the difference is that Corbyn could cost important people in the Labour Party their jobs and their position in the Party and they kept their heads down and equivocated in a way that people didn't with Rowling. And spectators were more closely watching what the Labour Party was doing. And the more equivocal tone got taken up by other people.

So there are reasons other than just an acceptance of anti-semitism for the difference in treatment of Corbyn and Rowling.

Including the lack of a direct statement from Corbyn and I can think of a few others.

[legionseagle]

Given the consistent editorial line of The Guardian over recent years, and given its status as the paper of record for "the liberal left", it's not just okay to be a transphobe on the liberal left; in certain circles it's damn near compulsory.

[lilliburlero]

less likely to have direct person consquences for the people who are thought leaders in the response.

I don't think this is the case at all. Rowling tried to use her influence in support of Maya Forstater's case that anti-trans sentiment was a protected belief. Trans people (particularly trans women) who are publicly visible in criticising Rowling's or anyone else's transphobia are almost certain to face harassment, doxxing attempts and campaigns to get them sacked. It's very much real-world stuff, much as it's often dismissed as "just people yelling at each other on Twitter."

[andrewducker]

Gotcha, that makes sense. Although I definitely saw multiple statements from Jeremy Corbyn at the time saying that antisemtism wasn't okay.

[perennialanna]

I am both a former Labour member (during Corbyn's leadership, of which I was publicly critical) and a trans person. Rowling's views and their ability to influence others have definitely had more impact on my day-to-day safety.

(Former member because I came to the conclusion that I was uncomfortable being a paid-up member of any political party and preferred being a floating Tory-hater. Also, I was having an ongoing financial crisis and couldn't really afford the subs any more).

[cmcmck]

I'm also a former Labour party member (the Iraq war and the 'Kelly Affair' finished me) and also a trans person with Jewish ancestry thrown in for good measure.

Rowling has done a lot of damage to a certain generation of trans people. Her's has been the worst sort of betrayal.

[liv]

I haven't read the book, but based on the general shape of argument, which I'm extremely familiar with as I hang out with lots of leftists, lots of Jews and lots of leftist Jews: Baddiel is right that many on the left regard anti-Semitism as an acceptable prejudice or think it doesn't really matter (crudely, because British Jews are usually white and on average richer than the general population). Corbyn I'm pretty sure is in exactly that position, he doesn't hate Jews personally, he just thinks anti-Semitism isn't serious.

However it's almost always a mistake to talk about a prejudice being acceptable by contrasting it with another prejudice that you think is taken more seriously. Much of the British left, within the Labour party and in traditional as well as social media, is extremely tolerant of, if not actively participating in, transphobia. It's like when someone says "nobody would ever say / do that to a Black person"... the reaction is universally, er, actually people do say and do that kind of thing to Black people all the time.

[white_hart]

Yes, I think it is an issue, and I think Baddiel does really well when it comes to illustrating that with examples of anti-Semitism being ignored by the left and has made me see that more clearly than I did. I just think that some of his arguments don't work because they rely on comparisons that aren't like for like and assume that all prejudices work the same way.

[legionseagle]

This slightly ties in, but I was disconcerted to hear about Harman J's antisemitism today - not that I'm surprised that a man who was a misogynist and all-round jerk might be an anti-semite, but that no-one (including the Jewish barrister present at that jaw-dropping example of his anti-semitism) had raised it about him.

[white_hart]

That is interesting, and could well be an example of the thing I think Baddiel is absolutely right to point out.