Britain to adopt definition of "anti-semitism" mandated by 'holocau$t' Industry profiteers

[Hannover]

There was a time when Britain was independent and did it's own thinking; it's safe to say that is no longer the case.

Adopting a definition of "anti-semitism" which benefits those making the rules is a clear sign that Britain has become another banana reublic.

excerpt:

Adopting the definition formulated in May by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) is meant to make it harder for people to get away with discriminatory or prejudiced behaviour due to unclear or differing definitions of what anti-Semitism actually is.

One Labour Jewish lawmaker, Luciana Berger, reported in April she had received thousands of online abusive messages including threats to rape her.

Last week, a man was jailed for subjecting Berger to what Britain's Crown Prosecution Service described as "highly offensive, hateful and racist articles" in 2014 and 2015.

As if this slimey IHRA organization can be trusted about anything that doesn't involve making money from the '6M' fraud. It will merely "make it easier" for them to continue their theft.

What does "abusive mean"? Who decides what "abusive" means? Something that she simply just does not agree with no doubt.
Let's see these "messages". Did she report this "rape threat" to the police? If so, let's see the results of the investigation.

And what "articles" are these? Can we see them? Or is this once again something that some Jew merely doesn't like.

'antisemitic': any thought or person that a Jew doesn't like

Read on.

- Hannover


http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britai ... KKBN14100F

Britain to adopt new anti-Semitism definition to fight hate crime

Britain said on Monday it would become one of the first countries to adopt an international definition of anti-Semitism to clamp down on hate crime after an increase in the number of reported incidents targeting Jews.

Adopting the definition formulated in May by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) is meant to make it harder for people to get away with discriminatory or prejudiced behaviour due to unclear or differing definitions of what anti-Semitism actually is.

"It means there will be one definition of anti-Semitism – in essence, language or behaviour that displays hatred towards Jews because they are Jews – and anyone guilty of that will be called out on it," Prime Minister Theresa May said in pre-released extracts from a speech she was due to deliver.

No details were immediately available as to where the speech would be made.

The government is due to publish its response on Tuesday to an inquiry into anti-Semitism conducted by a committee of lawmakers and another report published in 2015.

The IHRA definition adopted by the group's 31 member countries, including Britain, reads:

“Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Tackling anti-Semitism has risen up the political agenda in Britain, home to the world's fifth largest Jewish population, as those incidents rose over the last two years.

In the first half of this year, the number of incidents recorded by the Community Security Trust (CST), which provides security advice to Britain's 270,000 Jews, rose by 11 percent.

The CST said most of the anti-Semitic incidents in the first half of the year took place in April, May and June when the issue of discrimination against Jews was in the news.

Politicians have warned about rising levels of hate crimes due to the Brexit vote, but it is difficult to establish the exact reason behind any increase and whether better relations between police and minorities account for more reporting.

One Labour Jewish lawmaker, Luciana Berger, reported in April she had received thousands of online abusive messages including threats to rape her.

Last week, a man was jailed for subjecting Berger to what Britain's Crown Prosecution Service described as "highly offensive, hateful and racist articles" in 2014 and 2015.

The opposition Labour party has launched an inquiry into whether the party had a problem in its ranks with anti-Semitism because of statements by former London mayor Ken Livingstone to Oxford University students.

Why have supremacist Jews have been marketing the '6,000,000' lie since at least 1869?

[madhatter]

In the first half of this year, the number of incidents recorded by the Community Security Trust (CST), which provides security advice to Britain's 270,000 Jews, rose by 11 percent.

What about Police reports?

I remember two years ago Maureen Lipman on the BBC talking about rising ant-semitism.
The Police reports showed something completely different.
There were more incidents against Muslims and no rise in ant-semitic incidents.

A Hate Incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someones prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.

[borjastick]

Joshua Bonehill has just been convicted of trolling her online and making violent threats against her and of anti semitic threats. We see the world changing where abuse can now be termed 'hate crime' and as such it falls into a much darker category of crime with a heavier type of punishment.

The only good thing I see from this new step announced by the British PM is that verbal and written dislike of Israel will not fall under the grasp of this law. Long live BDS then...

[hermod]

"It means there will be one definition of anti-Semitism – in essence, language or behaviour that displays hatred towards Jews because they are Jews – and anyone guilty of that will be called out on it," Prime Minister Theresa May said in pre-released extracts from a speech she was due to deliver.

In other words, if some Jews feel offended and 'hated' by yourself because of anything you said/say or did/do, you're a criminal and you'll pay for it !!

Camouflaged law against Holocaust revisionism in Britain??? In any case, many Jews surely feel (or pretend to feel) offended by Holocaust revisionism and 'hated' by Holocaust revisionists and their readers. And since the European Court of Human Rights has already held that Holocaust revisionism is hate speech...

[Turpitz]

This barren, dead-eyed harridan is one seriously hardcore Zionist bitch. I personally believe she is actually a Jew herself. All that organized Jewry has to do, is fart, and she'll crawl up and have a crap. I can see her, not only turning Britain into a full blown surveillance state but I also think she may very well be the one to introduce legislation that criminalizes questioning The Industry.

If one cares to look into her eyes for any length of time an overwhelming sense of hopelessness and despair falls upon you. Her eyes are like piss-holes in the snow, derelict voids where all feelings die.

Her delay tactics have certainly worked very well in regard to protecting all her Jewish paedo friends, which I predicted would be the case a few years back. Not that anyone really cares, most in Britain seem quite content to have child rapists lording over them. Good god, they actually vote for them for god's sake.

[NLH]

In the first half of this year, the number of incidents recorded by the Community Security Trust (CST), which provides security advice to Britain's 270,000 Jews, rose by 11 percent.

What about Police reports?

I remember two years ago Maureen Lipman on the BBC talking about rising ant-semitism.
The Police reports showed something completely different.
There were more incidents against Muslims and no rise in ant-semitic incidents.

A Hate Incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someones prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.

Gilad Atzmon has an interesting article on the topic of this definition of anti-semitism and British law (http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/12 ... s-official)

And he also exposed the fraudulent claim in the rise of anti-Semitic incidents that is propagated in the media (http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/2/ ... tisemitism).

"Jewish power is the power to silence criticism of Jewish power." - Gilad Atzmon

What is it about this race and their alleged eternal victim status. Maybe their behaviour?

[madhatter]

What is it about this race and their alleged eternal victim status. Maybe their behaviour?

Yep. I have a lot of time for Atzmon and others like Miko Peled.

There is an interesting youtube video of him and a Rabbi Shapiro about Jewish Identity politics.

Not only history has been hi-jacked.

[Zulu]

There was a time when Britain was independent and did it's own thinking; it's safe to say that is no longer the case.

Adopting a definition of "anti-semitism" which benefits those making the rules is a clear sign that Britain has become another banana republic.

I found an article which goes further:

The IHRA definition lists a number of specific examples of anti-Semitism it wishes to outlaw and these include:

—Making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective—such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

—Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

—Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

—Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

—Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

—Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

—Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Taken to its natural conclusion, it is hard to think of any descriptions of specific Jewish ethnic behaviour not covered by these sweeping definitions. (Or indeed any article in TOO.)

Source: "The big chill on free speech hits Britain" by Francis Carr Begbie
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/20 ... s-britain/

If this is true, UK has now a kind of Gayssot Act. That act allowed French Jewish Organization to qualify and sue Pr. Faurisson for "antisemitism" for the conclusions of his work on gas chambers and the alleged jews' genocide each time there are publicly expressed.
That law permits the condemnation of any expression of doubt about the existence of gas chambers or any form of challenging the "official" holocaust narrative as "established" at Nuremberg.
I am afraid that, from now on, Vincent Reynouard is not safe anymore in England.

[borjastick]

There was a time when Britain was independent and did it's own thinking; it's safe to say that is no longer the case.

Adopting a definition of "anti-semitism" which benefits those making the rules is a clear sign that Britain has become another banana republic.

I found an article which goes further:

The IHRA definition lists a number of specific examples of anti-Semitism it wishes to outlaw and these include:

—Making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective—such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

—Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

—Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

—Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

—Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

—Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

—Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Taken to its natural conclusion, it is hard to think of any descriptions of specific Jewish ethnic behaviour not covered by these sweeping definitions. (Or indeed any article in TOO.)

Source: "The big chill on free speech hits Britain" by Francis Carr Begbie
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/20 ... s-britain/

If this is true, UK has now a kind of Gayssot Act. That act allowed French Jewish Organization to qualify and sue Pr. Faurisson for "antisemitism" for the conclusions of his work on gas chambers and the alleged jews' genocide each time there are publicly expressed.
That law permits the condemnation of any expression of doubt about the existence of gas chambers or any form of challenging the "official" holocaust narrative as "established" at Nuremberg.
I am afraid that, from now on, Vincent Reynouard is not safe anymore in England.

By wanting these restrictions and controls haven't they just publicly and openly thrown in the towel and admitted defeat? Surely by wanting their holocaust protected in law means they know it just doesn't standup to scrutiny and that perhaps millions of people not only realise it's a lie but are actively discussing it.