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

[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.