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

[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.